By Nelson Manneh
Justice Sonia Akinbiyi of the Banjul High Court Annex has issued an order restraining both the plaintiff and defendants, along with their associates, from accessing a piece of land currently under litigation. The court ruled that all parties must strictly maintain the prevailing status quo and stay off the land until the substantive matter is resolved.
The case involves Momodou Lamin Jarju, also known as Rongo, as the plaintiff, against Isatou Sisaho (1st Defendant), Ebrima Jaiteh (2nd Defendant), Alieu Jabbie (3rd Defendant), and Ally Owen (4th Defendant). Rongo is seeking damages amounting to D4 million for alleged trespass on the land located at Labourer Camp in Banjulunding, Kombo North District, West Coast Region.
The plaintiff is asking the court to declare him the rightful owner of the disputed land, which he claims measures 3000 by 3000 and is detailed in a site plan dated 24th March 2020, attached to the writ of summons. He is also seeking an injunction to prevent the defendants or their agents from interfering with his property and has requested the cancellation of any documents obtained by the defendants concerning the said land.
Justice Akinbiyi, in her ruling, emphasized that both parties must avoid any activity on the land.
“On the whole, in the manifest interest of justice, both parties are hereby ordered to stay off the land from today and strictly maintain the prevailing status. Any hovering on the suitland by any of the parties will be deemed contempt by this court, and sanctions shall follow,” she said.
She explained that the purpose of an interlocutory injunction is to preserve the property in dispute with minimal injury to all parties until a final decision is made. She referenced several legal precedents, including Opebiji & Anor v Muniru and Aboseldehyde Laboratories PLC v Union Merchant.
Justice Akinbiyi stated that the subject matter in question—land—is not perishable and can be restored to its rightful owner after judgment. As both parties have laid claim to ownership, she ruled that maintaining the status quo is in the interest of justice until the final determination of the case.
To clarify what status quo is to be maintained, she cited Umehuru & Ors v Chief Mord & Ors (2009), stating the court must determine and define the prevailing situation that should not be altered.
The plaintiff, through counsel BS Touray, filed a motion for an interlocutory injunction supported by a 13-paragraph affidavit and an additional affidavit sworn by Fatoumata Jadama. The core issue raised by the plaintiff’s counsel was whether the applicant is entitled to the injunction pending final judgment.
Touray argued that the plaintiff has demonstrated a substantial issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience favors the plaintiff. He said the plaintiff stands to suffer irreparable harm if the defendants are not restrained from interfering with the property. He added that damages would not adequately compensate for the loss, referencing American Cynamid Co v Ethicon Ltd and Buhari v Obasanjo.
The plaintiff’s counsel also assured the court that they are willing to pay damages should the injunction later be deemed wrongly granted.
In response, counsel for the defendants raised a single issue: whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction sought. Citing Fidelis Nwadialo on Civil Procedure in Nigeria and M Jabbu v Alhagie I. Sillah (2014–2015), the defense argued that an injunction is an equitable remedy granted at the discretion of the court and not as a matter of course.
The defense contended that the plaintiff had failed to establish any legal right to the land and that no credible evidence had been presented, only photographs of brickwork allegedly on the land. Counsel argued that the plaintiff’s legal rights were not under immediate threat and that granting the injunction would cause more harm to the defendants, urging the court to dismiss the application.
In conclusion, Justice Akinbiyi ordered all parties to refrain from any activity on the disputed land until the case is concluded, warning that any violations of the order would be treated as contempt of court.
