SOWAH J.S.C.
The injunction imposed on the defendant to remove his business equipment (less the shade) and which, in effect, restrained his business operation of a snack bar was, without doubt, mandatory and it practically resulted in pronouncing for the plaintiffs on the two main claims (a) and (c) indorsed on their writ. Counsel for the defendant thinks this is wrong in law and he has set this down as one of the grounds in his notice of appeal. Indeed, this motion has gained support from the learned editors of the Supreme Court Practice, 1970 who, at p. 427, have stated as follows:
“It is not the practice of the court (except by consent) to grant on an interlocutory application an injunction which will have the practical effect of granting the sole relief claimed (Dodd v. Marine Workers’ Union (1923) 93 L.J.Ch. 65). This does not deter the court from granting such interlocutory injunction as may be necessary to preserve property or prevent irreparable damage.”
Dodd v. Amalgamated Marin…