Adams Vrs Adu Kofi Ii [2023] GHAHC 82 (10 March 2023)

Adams Vrs Adu Kofi Ii [2023] GHAHC 82 (10 March 2023)

Plaintiff/Applicant failed to convincingly demonstrate protectable legal or equitable rights or irreparable harm warranting an injunction. The balance of convenience tilts adversely towards Defendant/Respondent, given ongoing development and third-party interests. Application does not satisfy principles for grant of injunction; court exercises discretion to refuse.

Citation
Adams Vrs Adu Kofi Ii [2023] GHAHC 82 (10 March 2023)
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Abdul Rahman Bossah Adams; Defendant/respondent: Nii Adu Kofi II
Court
ghahc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
10 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Motion for Interlocutory Injunction / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Land Ownership, Equitable Remedies
Source Language
eng
Civil Procedure Property Law Interlocutory Injunction Land Ownership Equitable Remedies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Rahman Bossah Adams

Plaintiff/applicant

Nii Adu Kofi II

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion for Interlocutory Injunction / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Plaintiff/Applicant has demonstrated protectable legal or equitable rights in the disputed land
  2. 2 Whether Plaintiff/Applicant will suffer irreparable harm if injunction is not granted
  3. 3 Whether balance of convenience favors granting the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff/Applicant failed to convincingly demonstrate protectable legal or equitable rights or irreparable harm warranting an injunction. The balance of convenience tilts adversely towards Defendant/Respondent, given ongoing development and third-party interests. Application does not satisfy principles for grant of injunction; court exercises discretion to refuse.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • No order as to cost