MENSAH vs. MORO [1980]DLHC1610

Date	1980-03-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC1610

TWUMASI J.

W. AMARTEIFIO FOR THE APPLICANT.

D. D. GWIRA FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1980]DLHC1610
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >MENSAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>MORO<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 728<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
23
MARCH 1981<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

W. AMARTEIFIO FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

D. D. GWIRA FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

TWUMASI J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.<o:p></o:p>This is a
motion for an interim injunction brought by the plaintiff herein, to restrain
the defendant, his servants, agents and workmen from interfering in anyway
whatsoever with the piece or parcel of land which is the subject-matter of the
suit. By his pleadings, the plaintiff alleges that some time in 1972 he acquired
two plots of land from the Agona stool for building purposes. He avers further
that some time in 1981 he discovered, much to his discomfiture, that the
defendant, together with his workmen and labourers, had entered upon the land
with the obvious intention of committing acts of trespass thereon. He says the
defendant, in flagrant disregard of warnings to desist from his acts, pro-
ceeded to fix pegs on the land and to make a profile and is now actively in the
process of commencing the erection of a house on the said land. In an affidavit
in support of the motion, the plaintiff avers that the land was granted to him
in 1972 by the Agona stool represented by Nana Essiaku III (deceased) and
Opanyin Kwame Tobah then head of the Agona Ahanta Anona stool family; and that
in consideration of the grant, as indeed is required by custom, he provided the
stool with a bottle of gin and paid for the land. He complains that the
defendant’s activities on the land are obviously calculated to inflict
irreparable damage to the land and calls for an immediate injunction to
restrain him from causing further damage to the property.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant, for his part, resists the motion and pleads contrariwise, that the
real truth of the matter is that, contrary to his assertion that he had
acquired two plots, the plaintiff in fact acquired only one plot of land which
shares boundary with the land claimed by the defendant and that the latter land
has never been granted to the plaintiff. The defendant denies that Kwame Tobah
ever granted a portion of land to the plaintiff in 1972 because according to
him, the said Kwame Tobah had been customarily removed as head of family in
1967, and thereby denuded of his capacity as head of family to make grants of
family land. He says that the plaintiff’s single plot of land measuring 100ft.
by 80ft. was in fact granted to him in 1972 by Opanyin Kobina Yeboah, then
regent and head of the Agona stool family, with the concurrence of Nana Essiaku
III. Thereafter, the said Opanyin Kobina Yeboah, with the concurrence of Nana
Essiaku III, granted a plot of land different from the plaintiff’s land to the
defendant. <o:p></o:p>He avers
that when a dispute arose about the disputed land, the stool family went into the
matter, inspected the land and adjudged that the land claimed by him was not
the land granted to the plaintiff. He averred these matters in his affidavit in
opposition.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Opanyin
Kobina Yeboah, who had earlier on applied and had been allowed to join the suit
as co-defendant, swore to an affidavit supporting the facts deposed to by the
defendant. One fact which is undisputed is that whereas the plaintiff has not
carried on any activity on the disputed land, the defendant has commenced
building on the land. The defendant avers that he has so far expended about
¢100,000 in procuring sand, cement, stones, iron rods, window and door frames,
flush doors and blocks; not to mention contractor’s fee and the cost of
clearing the land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In every
litigation, there is an inevitable lapse of time between the commencement of
the action and the trial, however efficient and expeditious the judicial
machinery may be. A person who is causing injury to property which is the
subject-matter of the action would naturally, if not prevented, take advantage
of the lapse of time to continue the injury. It was for the purpose of averting
such injury that equity assumed the power to grant interim injunctions the
purpose of which was and still is to preserve the status quo ante litem (see
Harman v. Jones (1841) Cr. &amp; Ph. 299; Black Point Syndicate, Ltd. v.
Eastern Concessions, Ltd. (1898) 79 L.T. 658; Leney &amp; Sons, Ltd. v.
Callingham and Thompson [1908] 1 K.B. 79, C.A. and Jones v. Pacaya Rubber and
Produce Co., Ltd. [1911] 1 K.B. 455 at p. 457, C.A. Although its purpose is
laudable, yet the courts do not grant an interim injunction to an applicant
just for the asking. Nor do the courts act arbitrarily. On the contrary, our
courts have, over the years, evolved very articulate rules and principles for
their guidance and, true to the dynamic and flexible character of the common
law tradition, these rules and principles have and continue to undergo a process
of metamor- phosis.<o:p></o:p>