Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Refusal of mandatory injunction enforcing extension of short-term lease of Moore Street property
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, hearing interlocutory application, refuses to order mandatory injunction enforcing the extension of a short-term lease of a retail property on Moore Street, on the basis that the applicant cannot show a strong arguable case that he is entitled to the relief sought.
Interlocutory injunction – mandatory injunction – enforcement of short-term lease – applicant rented premises on Moore street – respondent rents and sub-lets property from third party – respondent requires vacant possession – applicant alleges respondent represented that lease would be extended – respondent denies that it did, or could, make such a representation - Campus Oil test – Okunade v. Minister for Justice - more stringent test where mandatory relief sought - whether applicant can show strong arguable case – whether damages an adequate remedy – applicant cannot show strong arguable case - Court also of view that damages not an adequate remedy given that plaintiff says his loss is balance between his rent and the rent his sub-tenant pays – Court refuses to grant relief sought.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
