FRED KUSIM AWINDAOGO vs. MARTIN LUTHER KPEBU AND JOSEPHINE TEKPERTEY [2020]DLHC10542

Date	2020-07-06
Suit No.	SUIT NO: GJ/429/2020
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC10542

KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO J

A. HALAALI NCHUAKUNG FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT - PRESENT

BEN SEVOR FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENT- PRESENT

[2020]DLHC10542
																																						<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" >FRED KUSIM AWINDAOGO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MARTIN LUTHER KPEBU AND
JOSEPHINE TEKPERTEY<o:p></o:p>(AKA &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS
JOSEPHINE DZIFA MONNIE TEKPERTEY) <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">[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>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>A. HALAALI NCHUAKUNG FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT - PRESENT<o:p></o:p>BEN SEVOR FOR THE 2ND
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENT- PRESENT<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;">

1ST
DEFENDANT – APPEARS IN PERSON<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;MOTION
FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Introduction:<o:p></o:p><p class="scjnumber" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[1]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Robert J. Sharpe, in his book Injunctions and Specific
Performance, loose-leaf, (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2013) at para 2.60
notes that the risk&nbsp;a Plaintiff who asks for an injunction faces is that
“if an immediate remedy is not granted, his or her rights will be so impaired
by the time&nbsp;of&nbsp;trial and judgment that it
will be simply too late&nbsp;to&nbsp;afford an
adequate remedy.” To my mind, the conceptual justification for ordering an
injunction, an extraordinary relief lies in the risk that a Plaintiff faces, in
the form&nbsp;of&nbsp;apprehended and irreparable
harm, if the remedy is not granted. <o:p></o:p><p class="scjnumber" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">&nbsp;[2]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Order 25 Rule 1 of the High Court Civil Procedure
Rules, 2004 CI 47 stipulates that the Court may grant an injunction by
an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just
or convenient to do so, and the order may be made either unconditionally or upon
such terms and conditions as the court considers just. In deciding whether or
not to grant an order of interlocutory injunction it has been held that the
court would consider the justness and convenience of the order<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/2020-21/Gen_Jur_Court/Aaa.kab.INJUNCTION.Fred%20KUSIM%20v%20Martin%20KPEBU.Anor.2020.Review%20(2021_02_04%2012_43_53%20UTC).docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a>.<o:p></o:p>[3]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Informed by the
provision of the law cited herein, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant
whom I refer to simply as the Applicant by the application filed is praying
for:<o:p></o:p><p class="scjnumber" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -36pt; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">“(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; for INTERIM
ORDERS directed at the 1st and 2nd Defendants who have the manuscript of
the work tentatively titled “ANNOTATED EVIDENCE ACT OF GHANA” or any other work
emanating from the 1st Defendant/Respondent howsoever dif</main>