This appeal arises from the denial of a motion for interlocutory injunction seeking to prevent the City of Holly Springs from annexing certain property in an area of Cherokee County known as Hickory Flats. Appellant Cherokee County brought a petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the City of Holly Springs alleging the city failed to follow the procedures prescribed by OCGA § 36-36-21 and its own city ordinance during the annexation of certain properties into the corporate limits of the city. As to each of the properties in question, the county alleges that the city’s efforts to annex the properties failed to comply with various procedural requirements and are therefore void. After a hearing, the trial court concluded the county did not have standing to seek an interlocutory injunction and that even assuming the county did have standing to seek an interlocutory injunction, the law and the facts of the case are so adverse to the county’s position and a final order in its favor so unlikely, that denial of the injunction was proper because of the inconvenience and harm to the city if the injunction were granted. See R.D. Brown Contractors v. Board of Edu. of Columbia County , 280 Ga. 210, 211-212 626 SE2d 471 2006. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
1. To have standing to seek an interlocutory injunction, a party must have a legally protected interest that will be affected by the action sought to be enjoined. Georgia Power Corp. v. Allied Chem. Corp. , 233 Ga. 558, 560-561 1 212 SE2d 628 1975. The trial court in this case determined the county did not have standing to seek an interlocutory injunction because it failed to show it possessed “a legally protected interest or to allege evidence that shows that the county will suffer harm due to the city’s acceptance of deficient annexation applications and not due to the annexation itself.” The court essentially held that only the city and owners of property whose land is to be annexed have standing to challenge an annexation based on procedural deficiencies in the application process. It is with this holding that we must disagree.
