KWADWO FYNN vs. BEATRICE BAMFOE MORGAN [2019]DLHC8897

Date	2019-10-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO. LD/0355/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC8897

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE E. K. BOSOMPEM APENKWAH J.

BERNARD AGORTEY FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

FRANCIS GASU FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

[2019]DLHC8897
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >KWADWO FYNN<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BEATRICE BAMFOE MORGAN<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (LAND DIVISION 5), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO. LD/0355/2019&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
15TH OCTOBER, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>BERNARD AGORTEY FOR
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

FRANCIS
GASU FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE E. K. BOSOMPEM APENKWAH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Plaintiff
has applied for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the Defendant,
her assigns, workers, cohorts, hirelings, servant, successors, privies or any
other person however described, claiming through or with her from going on or
interfering with Plaintiff’s land, the subject matter of this Suit, in any
manner until the final determination of this Suit.<o:p></o:p>It
is provided by Order 25, rule 1(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules
2004 (C.I. 47) that the Court may grant an Injunction by an Interlocutory order
in all cases in which it is just or convenient to do so.&nbsp; It is also provided at rule 1(6) 1(6) of the
same Order 25 that in determining the application, the Court may consider it on
the basis of the papers filed and the Court may direct, where necessary the
Lawyer address it on specific points of law and facts.<o:p></o:p>This
application has been considered on the basis of the papers filed.&nbsp; I have looked at all the opposing affidavits,
Exhibits and Statement of case filed by the parties.<o:p></o:p>In
the case of Owusu vrs Owusu Ansah
(2007-2008) SCGLR 870, the Court held at holdings (1) as follows:<o:p></o:p>“The fundamental principle in
application for Interim Injunction is whether the Applicant has a legal right
at law or in equity which the Court ought to protect by maintaining the status
quo until the final determination of the action on its merits.&nbsp; This would be determined by considering the
pleadings and affidavit evidence before the Court.” <o:p></o:p>From the pleadings and affidavit
evidence, it does appear that the Applicant’s case is not frivolous and that it
appears he has a right at law which must be protected.”<o:p></o:p>But
is that the only consideration for the grant or refusal of this equitable
relief?&nbsp; The answer is an emphatic no.<o:p></o:p>In
the case of 18th July Limited
vrs Yehans International Limited (2012) 1 SCGLR 167 at holding (2) of the headnotes
the Court held as follows:<o:p></o:p>(2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Even
though, granting an Interim Injunction is discretionary, a trial Court in
determining an application for Interlocutory Injunction must be guided by the
following principles:<o:p></o:p>(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Consider
whether the case of an Applicant was not frivolous and had demonstrated that he
had legal or equitable right which a Court should protect. <o:p></o:p>(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Ensure
that the status quo was maintained so as to avoid an irreparable damage to the
applicant pending the hearing of the matter.<o:p></o:p>