Franny Investments LTD v Femi Alaba Olajide & Ors

An interim injunction to recover possession from an alleged trespasser requires a serious issue to be tried, consideration of damages as an adequate remedy, and assessment of the balance of convenience. A proprietor seeking possession from a trespasser must establish title and an intention to regain possession. Where the evidence shows that an occupier may be an assured shorthold tenant, the High Court should not use interim injunctive relief to bypass the proper possession process. The appropriate forum for possession proceedings is the County Court. Relief against persons unknown requires evidence that persons within the class have occupied or sought to occupy the property.

Franny Investments Ltd applied for an interim injunction concerning residential property which it wished to sell. It sought vacant possession from five named defendants and persons unknown said to be unlawfully occupying the property.

The application followed an urgent ex parte order made by Murray J on 28 August 2024, requiring an inter partes hearing and service of the claim and order. At the hearing, evidence indicated that the Akpatas occupied the property, while Mr Olajide asserted that he was an assured shorthold tenant and continued to live there. The central issues were whether the respondents were trespassers, whether interim relief was justified, and whether the High Court should grant possession-related relief where County Court possession proceedings were available.

1. Outcome. An interim injunction was granted against Mr and Mrs Akpata. Injunctive relief was refused against Mr Edeki, Ms Harris, Mr Olajide and persons unknown.
2. Under Senior Courts Act 1981, section 37, the High Court may grant an injunction where it is just and convenient. The applicable interim test, stated in American Cyanamid Limited v Ethicon Limited [1975] AC 396, asks whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether damages are an adequate remedy, and where the balance of convenience lies.
3. A proprietor seeking possession from a trespasser must establish title and an intention to regain possession. The claimant satisfied that requirement in relation to the Akpatas. The evidence that they lived at the property, including police and council tax evidence, supported a strong case that they were trespassers. Damages were not shown to be adequate, and the balance of convenience favoured vacant possession so that the property could be sold.
4. There was no basis for relief against Mr Edeki or Ms Harris because neither had occupied, nor sought to occupy, the property. There was also no evidence that persons unknown, other than the identified occupants, had sought to live there.
5. Mr Olajide’s position was materially different. The evidence showed that he had occupied the property for a considerable period, had paid rent, and might remain an assured shorthold tenant. If he remained in occupation, he could be removed only through the proper possession and eviction process. The High Court should not grant an injunction where doing so would bypass that process, particularly when possession proceedings in the County Court were available. The evidence that he no longer lived there was weak, while the evidence supporting continued occupation was stronger. The balance of convenience therefore favoured refusing relief against him.
6. The judge made no findings on wider family allegations, alleged criminal damage, or disputed documents because they were irrelevant to the interim issues. He warned that reliance on forged or fabricated documents could have serious consequences, including committal for contempt.