Franny Investments Limited v Femi Alaba Olajide & Ors

Interim relief in the High Court should not be used to obtain the substantive outcome of possession where county court possession proceedings are available and ongoing. The proper forum is the county court, where disputed factual and legal issues can be determined finally rather than on an interim basis. The existence of High Court jurisdiction does not make parallel proceedings appropriate where the injunction would effectively bypass the ordinary possession process. The court should also refuse relief against alleged occupiers or persons unknown where the evidence is insufficient to establish occupation, trespass, or a proper basis for the order sought.

The claimant sought renewed interim injunctions concerning residential premises against the first and second defendants and persons unknown. Earlier High Court hearings had resulted in an injunction against other alleged trespassers, but relief against these defendants and persons unknown had been refused. The first defendant’s occupation, the genuineness of an alleged tenancy agreement, and related allegations concerning documents were the subject of ongoing county court possession and harassment proceedings. The claimant relied on further evidence said to show forgery and that the first defendant no longer resided at the property. The central issues were whether interim High Court relief was appropriate and whether there was a sufficient evidential basis for orders against the defendants or persons unknown.

1. First defendant. The application for an interim injunction was refused. The claimant sought, through interim relief, to achieve the substantive result of peremptory possession. County court possession proceedings were already on foot, with a hearing having taken place and further directions given. That forum could determine the disputed factual and legal issues, including the alleged forgery, finally. The balance of convenience and justice therefore favoured refusing High Court relief.
2. The further evidence did not justify reopening the issue. The claimant’s evidence concerning the alleged falsified tenancy document, bank-transfer screenshot, and the first defendant’s alleged departure did not displace the earlier conclusion that the county court was the appropriate forum. There was no legal shortcut by interim relief or justification for rerunning matters previously ventilated before Sheldon J.
3. Second defendant. There was no sufficient evidence that he had occupied or used the property, or that he had otherwise dealt with it. The court was not in a position to make findings of fact. Any issue relevant to the claimant’s entitlement to possession belonged in the county court.
4. Persons unknown. The proposed order was another attempt to rerun an unsuccessful application. The court could not identify the photographed individual or determine the basis or duration of that person’s presence. The claimant had known that a named individual could be added and served, but had not taken that course.
5. The claims for damages, findings of abuse of process, and recommendations for criminal or local-authority investigations had no basis on the interim application. The Form N244 application was refused and dismissed. The court declined to strike out either that application or the High Court claim. No order was made as to costs.

The judgment records two earlier hearings in the same proceedings:

• 27 August 2024: Murray J gave directions and notice of a subsequent interim-injunction hearing.
• 6 September 2024: Sheldon J granted an interim injunction against two other defendants but refused relief against the first and second defendants and persons unknown.
• 21 January 2025: The present application for renewed interim relief was refused and dismissed by Fordham J.