ACCRA - A.D 2018
MODERN KOSA LTD - (Plaintiff)
KOFI DANSO - (Defendants)

SUIT NO:  GJ 1161/2018



Defendant/Applicant seeks an order for a mandatory interlocutory injunction to compel the Plaintiff to remove an iron corrugated fence erected by the Plaintiff over the perimeters of the building, which the Applicant claim is the subject matter of the suit and for any further orders to restrain the Plaintiff from any interference with the property of the Defendant till the final determination of the suit. Plaintiff/Respondent seeks per its writ recovery of liquidated sums being monies it claim Applicant owes him for renting out premises at Abossey Okai, having first led and introduced Plaintiff to purchase that property and becoming a care taker of the property.


To Plaintiff/Respondent as it needed the premises for its business, it had to reimburse the tenants placed in occupation of the Abossey Okai premises their rent that they had paid to Applicant. And having paid all the monies involved it seeks to recover same from Applicant. Defendant/Applicant in his defence denied the claim of owing the Plaintiff/Respondent and rather counterclaimed for the cancellation of the indenture in the name of the Plaintiff/Respondent, recovery of the sum of Gh¢50,000 as monies advanced to the CEO of Plaintiff/Respondent company, recovery of an amount of Gh¢80,000 as cost of a Tundra vehicle in the possession of the Plaintiff/Respondent, recovery of 125,000 Euros as monies invested in Plaintiff’s company and finally recovery of Gh¢550,000 as purchase price of a two acre land at Dansoman.


I have deliberately recounted the respective claims of the parties in order to illume one’s understanding of the background to this application and also situate it within the context of this application for injunction to compel Respondent to remove the corrugated sheets. Applicant claim that he is asserting ownership over the property and hence the application to preserve the status quo of the building.

Order 25 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C. I. 47 states as follows:

“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 an application for interlocutory injunction it is the duty of the Applicant to demonstrate a number of factors, among which are, that there is a right that ought to be protected at law or in equity, that greater and irreparable hardship will be occasioned by the refusal of the application, that the application is not frivolous or vexatious and that compensation may not be adequate remedy. See the following cases: OWUSU v OWUSU ANSAH [2007-2008] SCGLR 870 at 875, VANDERPUYE v NARTEY [1977] 1 GLR 428; AMERICAN CYNAMID CO v ETHICON CO. LTD [1975] AC 396, THOMAS APPIAH ANSAH v NANA KATAKYIRE II Suit No. H1/154/11CA. What is at the heart of the claims and counterclaims are recovery of monies that each claim is due him. Applicant specifically claim recovery of monies for various sums given to Respondent or its CEO, payment made for a vehicle, monies paid for a land at Dansoman. The Abossey Okai property might have been one of the grounds that might have precipitated the respective action but it is not at the heart and the subject matter of the dispute even though I concede that Applicant in his claim seeks an order for the cancellation of the indenture but nowhere in his counter claim does he seeks for a declaration in his favour as owner of the property or for a transfer of ownership to him.

The fact of Applicant not seeking to recover the Abossey Okai property or the Dansoman land or recovery of the Tundra vehicle is a testament to the fact that the counter claim of Applicant is essentially a claim for monetary value for whatever monies he avers to be entitled to.


The monies that Applicant claim are due him may conveniently if he succeeds in this action be awarded him without the property being affected at all and I think condoning off the property for the purposes of development by Respondent should not be visited with any kind of injunction from the court in view of the claims and counter claims of the parties.


For the short reason preferred I find no just or convenient cause to grant this application and same is declined.