In suit No: GJ 597/2017 between Daniel Ashie Kotei & Anor v Nii Amarkai III, the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, where the Plaintiffs in that suit sought for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 1^st Plaintiff herein and his assigns from trespassing or interfering with the Asere Mantse’s palace at Anunsah Clottey Street Kaneshie as the Asere Mantse’s official residence, I refused that prayer in my ruling as the allegation of renovation works that was being undertaken could not in any way constitute an alienation or sale of the property as Daniel Ashie Kotei had alleged.

In this application the Plaintiff prays for an order of interlocutory injunction, which had earlier been refused against him, to be granted to restrain the Defendants from disturbing his quiet enjoyment of the palace until the final determination of the suit. In an affidavit deposed to in support of the application by the Plaintiff he styles himself as the Dzasetse of Asere and the acting Asere Mantse and the lawful representative of the Asere stool. That the other Plaintiffs are principal Elders of Asere by virtue of their headship over Frimpongwe, Amartsewe, Anunsa and Asere Tsorno. Plaintiff depose that 1^st Respondent being the head of Agbonwe and with 2^nd Defendant as the Asafoatse within Asere the Defendants having been laying claim to the ownership of the land with a building thereon at Anunsa Clottey, Kaneshie, the Asere stool palace, which is the property of the Asere Stool.

To Plaintiff the Defendants have been disturbing the quiet enjoyment of the palace and threatening the lives of the Plaintiffs and other users of the palace. To Plaintiff even though the Ga Traditional Council restrained the Defendants, yet they have ignored the restraining order made by the Ga Traditional Council. And hence his prayer that the Defendants be restrained from disturbing his quiet enjoyment of the palace.

The Defendants have opposed the application for interlocutory injunction. In an affidavit in opposition deposed to by the 1^st Defendant he claim that the property is the Asere Mantse’s palace and it is for Asere Stool and therefore all Elders of Asere and people of Asere have the right to enter the palace. And that they have not in any way disturbed the quiet enjoyment of any body. Defendant further depose that by custom the 1^st plaintiff only acts as Asere Mantse but with the appointment of a substantive one the 1^st Plaintiff seized to act as Asere Mantse. And therefore the claim of 1^st Plaintiff acting cannot be correct. 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 among other factors that there is a right that ought to be protected at law or in equity and that the application is not frivolous or vexatious, that if the application were denied by the court irreparable damage would be caused to the applicant, that there was the need to hold the balance evenly between the parties pending the final determination of the suit and finally that compensation would be inadequate remedy. See the following cases: OWUSU v OWUSU ANSAH [2007- 2008] SCGLR 870 at 875, VANDERPUYE v NARTEY [1977] 1 GLR 428; EKWAM v PIANIM [1996-97] SCGLR 117.

From the Plaintiffs’ writ and the application I glean that they concede that the Defendants belonging to Agbonwe faction and being the Asafoatse of Asere respectively all have a right to the use of the Asere palace at Anunsa. As after all the parties hail from Asere. The palace not being the personal property of the applicants, the question is can Applicants have access, use and enjoyment of the palace to the exclusion of the other families within Asere such as to make the court restrain the Defendants in order to make Applicants have exclusive use and enjoyment of the palace? I think the decision to grant or refuse here will turn on the justness or otherwise of the grant or refusal of the application. Justness of the case demands that all the families have access to the use of the palace.

However, as the presence of the Defendants at the palace cannot be done in a peaceable manner with its likelihood of endangering a breach of the peace and with the Plaintiff’s already in possession, I find it necessary to maintain the status quo until the final determination of the suit. And on that score I grant the application restraining the Defendants from entering the palace to threaten or disturb the quiet enjoyment of the current occupants or users until the final determination of the suit save if for stated reason, the Defendants need to go to the palace to perform any customary rites, for the sake of peace and not to endanger its breach, the Defendants must notify the Police of the date and time and with a copy of the notification served on the Plaintiffs, who are in possession of the palace to ensure adequate security during the time that the Defendants would be in the palace to perform their customary rites.

I make no order as to cost.