(delivering the judgment of the Court): The respondent/plaintiff claims damages against the appellant/defendant for libel. The libel was alleged to be contained in an article headed "Danger in Model Job" and another article headed "Cops Check Model Job" published in two issues of The Sunday Mail dated April 14, 1985 and June 30, 1985 respectively.

The respondent also asks for an injunction to restrain the defendant from the publication of the articles or any of them or in words to the like effect.

On an ex parte application the respondent asked for an interim injunction pending hearing of the action substantially in the terms of the claim for an injunction as endorsed in the writ. The learned Judge gave an order in terms. The appellant then applied to set aside the order. It was dismissed. Hence the appeal.

After hearing the appeal we formed the view that the learned Judge had acted erroneously in the exercise of his judicial discretion when he granted the interim injunction. We therefore allowed the appeal with costs and set aside the order. We now give our reasons.

The pleadings referred to the two articles that were alleged to be libellous. As for the first art