Both the plaintiff and defendant have established competing prima facie cases, with the plaintiff relying on his registration as proprietor and the defendant asserting long-standing possession and a counterclaim for part of the land. The court finds that the plaintiff has not demonstrated a clear right to an injunction, as the defendant's occupation since 1998 and documentary evidence of purchase create a genuine dispute. The court is not persuaded that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm that cannot be compensated by damages, especially as the plaintiff has not used the portion occupied by the defendant for over fourteen years. The balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo, with both parties remaining on their respective portions until the suit is determined. Granting the injunction would effectively evict the defendant before the merits are heard, which is inappropriate given the unresolved counterclaim. Accordingly, the application for injunction is dismissed, and the status quo is to be maintained.