The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success or that he would suffer irreparable injury not compensable by damages if the injunction was not granted. The respondent had been in possession of the disputed portion for over 11 years, having purchased it and developed it with the applicant's knowledge. The balance of convenience did not favour the applicant, as the respondent and his family depended on the land for their livelihood. Consequently, the application for an interlocutory injunction lacked merit, and the court ordered that the status quo be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.