The court found that the plaintiffs admitted to obtaining and defaulting on the mortgage loan, with the 1st plaintiff as the sole registered owner of the suit premises. Although the property was deemed matrimonial property, the plaintiffs failed to provide a valid valuation report to challenge the defendant's valuation or substantiate claims of intended sale at an undervalue. The court held that the relevant provisions of the Land Act, including those protecting matrimonial property, were applicable to the charge, but the plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case with a probability of success. The court emphasized that equitable relief is not available to parties who have defaulted and made no effort to remedy their position, and that damages could suffice as compensation. Consequently, the plaintiffs were undeserving of interim injunctive relief, even considering the matrimonial nature of the property.