IN 2005, Appellant Rajkarran Ramkissoon brought an action against the Respondents claiming damages for , inter alia, trespass to lands.He obtained an interlocutory injunction restraining the Respondents from entering on the lands.
The trial judge , in granting the injunction , stated that he was satisfied that the Plaintiff could at trial obtain the final injunction which he sought.
He also referred to the lack of evidence of the defendants ability to pay damages.
The respondents appealed to the Full Court against the decision of the trial judge. The Full Court allowed the Respondent’s appeal and discharged the interlocutory injunction on the ground that the trial judge fell into error when he went on to express satisfaction that the Respondent could obtain at the trial the final injunction he sought, and in failing to address his mind to the financial position of both parties in relation to the payment of damages and where the balance of convenience lies.

The Appellate Court Held: The application for the interlocutory injunction was wrongly granted and should be discharged. The trial judge fell into error in granting the injunction on the sole premise that the Respondents were silent in their affidavits on the issue of the Appellant’s ability to pay damages.
Appeal dismissed- Decision of the Full Court affirmed.
Mr. R. N. Poonai, represented the Appellant.
Mr. Ashton Chase, S.C., for the Respondents.
Justice of Appeal Chang who delivered the judgment said: The Appellants and the Respondents are brothers and sons of the late Ramkishun who was the lessee of lands situated on the left bank of the Abary River from the Government. On the 15th of July, 1958 after the demise of Ramkishun, The appellant brought an action in the High Court against the Respondents in which he claimed damages for trespass and breach of quiet occupation of the lands, an injunction restraining the Respondents from entering and remaining thereon and a declaration that he was the lessee thereof.
On the 28th July, 1998, the Appellant applied to and, on the 24th March, 2000 obtained from a High Court judge an interlocutory injunction restraining the Respondents from entering, remaining or continuing to trespass on the said lands. The trial judge in granting the interlocutory injunction against the interlocutory injunction against the Respondents , made the following n statements:
“On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff could at the trial obtain the final injunction”
“The Plaintiff at paragraph 15 of his affidavit gives an undertaking as to damages but says nothing about the Defendant’s capacity in this regard. It is not without significance that the Defendant in his affidavit in answer is silent on this issue . With no evidence as to the Defendant’s capacity to pay, I will continue the injunction.’
“The Respondents appealed to the Full Court against the decision of the trial judge. The Full Court allowed the Respondents’ appeal discharged the interlocutory injunction and held that the trial judge fell into error when he went on to express satisfaction that the Respondents could obtain at the trial the final injunction he seeks “.
The Full Court further found that in considering the issue as to whether damages would be an adequate remedy, the trial judge :
“(…) did not address his mind as to the financial position of both parties in relation to the payment of damages and where the balance of convenience lies. He rested his decision to continue the injunction solely on the fact that the Appellant was silent in his Affidavit in answer on his capacity to pay damages even though he observed that the Respondent had also not made mention of this.
Despite the disagreement of this court with the approach taken by the Full Court in deciding whether the interlocutory injunction ought to have granted or refused , this Court is nevertheless in firm agreement with the ultimate decision of the Full Court that the trial judge was in error in granting to the Appellant his application for the interlocutory injunction and that it should be discharged .
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Full Court is affirmed.