The legal battle surrounding the Kwadwo Safo and Kwadwo Fosu funeral dispute and the role of injunctions within it has made me rethink the weaponization of court orders in family feuds and funeral crises, which seems to have become a common norm. I view this as an abuse of the court system and a misuse of the law by both lawyers and judges. Injunctions are no longer deployed as protective shields; rather, they have been turned into spears of obstruction.
A last-minute injunction for a funeral clearly contradicts the principles of forbearance, forthrightness, and truth. Morally, rights must be exercised in a way that honors conscience and avoids causing “great injury.” Using an injunction as a tool for ambush or obstruction constitutes a profound misuse of the legal process. In such sensitive matters, timing and motive must be paramount considerations. An eleventh-hour legal maneuver is particularly egregious to justice, and I believe judges who facilitate such tactics crucify Christ anew while flouting moral discipline, ultimately risking bringing the cause of God into disrepute.
The power to grant an injunction is one of the judiciary’s most important and effective tools. It exists to preserve justice, prevent irreparable harm, and protect the rights of parties while a dispute is being resolved. An injunction is intended to maintain the status quo until the court determines the merits of a case. It is a shield for justice not a weapon for strategic disruption or delay.
Yet there is a growing public concern that, in some instances, litigants wait until the final hours before a major event, particularly funerals, traditional ceremonies, or other important public functions to seek an injunction. By that stage, families and communities have often invested substantial financial resources, time, professional services, and emotional energy in planning and preparation. A last-minute court order halting such an event can result in severe financial losses, emotional distress, and unnecessary public tension.
This raises an important question: if the grounds for seeking an injunction were known days or even weeks earlier, why should the application be delayed until the eleventh hour? Justice should never become a tactical surprise. Courts should consider not only the legal merits of an application but also whether the applicant acted promptly, reasonably, and in good faith.
This is not an argument against injunctions. They remain an indispensable safeguard in every constitutional democracy. Rather, it is a call for reforms that discourage the misuse of emergency applications and protect the integrity of the judicial process. Where an applicant has had ample opportunity to seek relief but chooses to wait until the last moment without compelling justification, the court should carefully examine whether the claimed urgency is genuine or self-created.
To strengthen public confidence in the administration of justice, several reforms deserve serious consideration:
- Prompt filing requirements: Applicants should be expected to seek injunctive relief without unreasonable delay after becoming aware of the facts giving rise to the dispute.
- Closer scrutiny of emergency applications: Courts should carefully assess whether the urgency is genuine or has been created by the applicant’s own delay.
- Expedited hearings: Matters involving funerals, chieftaincy disputes, and other time-sensitive customary events should, where practicable, be heard on an accelerated basis.
- Cost sanctions for abuse: Where an applicant deliberately delays proceedings for tactical advantage, courts should have the discretion to impose appropriate costs or sanctions.
- Compensation for proven losses: Where a last-minute injunction is later found to have been improperly obtained, courts should consider awarding compensation for proven financial losses suffered by innocent parties.
These proposals are not intended to weaken the right to seek an injunction. Rather, they seek to preserve the integrity of this important legal remedy by ensuring that it is exercised responsibly, and in fairness.
The administration of justice must always balance the protection of legal rights with the avoidance of unnecessary hardship. Public confidence in the courts depends not only on the correctness of judicial decisions but also on the belief that the judicial process cannot be manipulated to inflict avoidable harm.
The judiciary remains the guardian of justice and the rule of law. By ensuring that injunctions are granted fairly, promptly, and only where truly necessary, the courts will continue to strengthen public trust and demonstrate that justice is guided by law, equity, and the public interest not by strategy or delay.
Justice delayed by litigants should not become justice denied to innocent families and communities. The law must remain a protector of rights, never an instrument of needless disruption.
For the authority of the courts rests on public confidence that justice will be administered fairly and without abuse. An injunction is a powerful remedy meant to preserve the status quo not a tool for delay.
It is troubling when parties stay silent during major preparations, such as funerals, only to seek last-minute injunctions that halt proceedings after others have invested time, skills, money, energy and emotion, causing avoidable loss and distress.
While legal remedies are a right, they must be pursued in good faith, and courts should consider the timing and impact of urgent applications, especially where delay appears strategic.
Injunctions should not become tools of ambush or obstruction, as this undermines public confidence in justice. The system must remain fair, timely, and mindful of human consequences.
Venerable Dr Nii Naate Atswele Agbo Nartey
