ABUSUAPANYIN NANA TIITE POKU IV AND OTHERS VS. COMET PROPERTIES LTD, NANA OTENG KORANKYE II AND ODEI KOTOGWENE [2020]DLHC10447

ABUSUAPANYIN NANA TIITE POKU IV AND OTHERS VS. COMET PROPERTIES LTD, NANA OTENG... [2020]DLHC10447

Date	2020-06-29
Suit No.	SUIT NO: LD/0102/2019
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC10447

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ELLEN VIVIAN AMOAH

[2020]DLHC10447
																																						<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" >ABUSUAPANYIN
NANA TIITE POKU IV AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/
APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>VS.<o:p></o:p>COMET
PROPERTIES LTD, NANA OTENG KORANKYE II AND ODEI KOTOGWENE<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/
RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ELLEN VIVIAN AMOAH<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;An interlocutory
injunction is not a remedy that is easily granted. It is an order that is
ordinarily passed in circumstances which are clear and the&nbsp;prima facie&nbsp;materials clearly
justify a finding that the&nbsp;status
quo&nbsp;has been altered by one of the parties to the litigation and
the interests of justice demand that the&nbsp;status quo&nbsp;ante&nbsp;be
restored by way of a&nbsp; injunction. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In circumstances
of that nature, the essential condition is that the party claiming it must be
shown to have been in possession on the date of the order directing the parties
to maintain the&nbsp;status quo&nbsp;and
it must be further to shown that the party was dispossessed when the order was
impending or after such an order was passed.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>It may also be
granted where the respondent attempts to forestall an interim or temporary
injunction, such as where, on receipt of notice that an interim or temporary
injunction is about to be applied for, the
respondent hurries on the work in respect of which complaint is made so
that when he or she receives notice of an interim or temporary injunction it is
completed.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;There is authority
to the effect that Courts should be careful to not grant and injunction that
will have the effect of virtually deciding the suit without a trial (see&nbsp;Cayne v. Global Natural
Resources PLC [1984] I All ER 225).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>Grant of an
interlocutory mandatory injunction is in the discretion of the Court, taking
into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case and more
specifically the extent of injury or inconvenience caused to the applicant by
the conduct of the respondent and the extent of injury or hardship that will be
caused to the respondent by the grant.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;It is always open
to the Court to grant an alternative remedy such as security for costs or
damages instead of a mandatory interlocutory injunction. Actually on the
authority of &nbsp;Adjei v Foriwaa 1981 a court can make any order dictated by
commonsense and the exigencies of the case in the interest of justice.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In the case of &nbsp;Nottingham&nbsp;Building
Society v. Eurodynamics Systems plc, [1993] FSR 468, Chadwick J
laid down tests for the granting of mandatory interlocutory injunctions, thus;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“In my view the
principles to be applied are these. First, this being an inter</main>