Opoku and Others Vrs Sas and Another [2011] GHASC 28 (23 November 2011)

Opoku and Others Vrs Sas and Another [2011] GHASC 28 (23 November 2011)

The appeal was dismissed because the affidavit in support of the interlocutory injunction was regular, the lower courts properly applied the principles governing interlocutory injunctions, and the requirement for undertaking as to damages is discretionary and was adequately addressed.

Citation
[2011] GHASC 28
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Yehans International Limited; 1st Defendant: Martey Tsuru Family (per Frederick Shamo Quaye); 2nd Defendant/appellant: 18th July Limited (Former Regal Cinema)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
23 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal (supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Capacity to Depose Affidavit, Balance of Convenience, Undertaking as to Damages
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Interlocutory Injunction Capacity to Depose Affidavit Balance of Convenience Undertaking as to Damages

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yehans International Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Martey Tsuru Family (per Frederick Shamo Quaye)

1st Defendant

18th July Limited (Former Regal Cinema)

2nd Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the law clerk had capacity to swear the affidavit in support of the interlocutory injunction
  2. 2 Whether the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunction were properly applied by the lower courts
  3. 3 Whether the requirement for undertaking as to damages was properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the affidavit in support of the interlocutory injunction was regular, the lower courts properly applied the principles governing interlocutory injunctions, and the requirement for undertaking as to damages is discretionary and was adequately addressed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed as without merit.