AGYEMAN II AND OTHERS vs. HIMA DEKYI XIII AND OTHERS [1984]DLHC826

Date	1984-11-15
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1984]DLHC826

ADJABENG J.

J. EBOW DAWSON FOR THE APPLICANTS.

JAMES MERCER FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1984]DLHC826
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

AGYEMAN II AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>

{HIGH COURT, SEKONDI} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 2 GLR 385<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
15 NOVEMBER 1984<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

J. EBOW DAWSON FOR THE APPLICANTS. <o:p></o:p>

JAMES MERCER FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADJABENG J.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff-applicants
(hereinafter referred to simply as the plaintiffs) have brought this
application praying for an order setting aside an order of interim injunction
made on 12 July 1984 in favour of the defendants-respondents (hereinafter
simply called the defendants).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
giving rise to this application are as follows: the plaintiffs took an action
against the defendants claiming: <o:p></o:p>(i)
¢20,000 damages for trespass to the plaintiffs’ stool land situate at Kojokrom
and Gyedua village; and <o:p></o:p>(ii) an injunction
restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and licensees from
continuing the said trespass. The first defendant also counterclaimed for (i)
declaration of title to all lands in Lower Dixcove Traditional Area or
administrative area; (ii) an order for forfeiture and recovery of possession;
and <o:p></o:p>(iii) an
order that the first plaintiff and all persons claiming through him attorn
tenant to the first defendant. Judgment was given in favour of the defendants
on 3 July 1980.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiffs appealed against the judgment of the court but (as both counsel
admit in this application) the record of appeal is not yet ready and so the
appeal has not yet been entered in the cause list of the Court of Appeal. The
plaintiffs applied for a stay of execution of the judgment both in this court
and in the Court of Appeal but both applications were unsuccessful. The
defendant therefore applied for a writ of possession; the application was
granted but the writ cannot be executed because of the administrative and social
problems involved in evicting the plaintiffs, their families, subjects and
tenants from an area of about 60 square miles. The regional secretary was
therefore asked to intervene and he has also referred the matter to the
Catholic Bishop of Sekondi-Takoradi for a solution. Meanwhile, according to the
defendants, the plaintiffs and their subjects and/or agents started selling,
leasing and demising the land adjudged to be the property of the defendants and
were also selling the naturally growing economic trees such as palm trees on
the said land. The defendants therefore brought an application for an order of
interim injunction pending the execution of the writ of possession. The court
on 12 July 1984 granted the application and made an order of interim injunction
against the plaintiffs their subjects and tenants It is this order of interim
injunction that the plaintiffs now seek to set aside in this application.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The rules
of court under which the plaintiffs’ application has been brought has not been
stated on the motion paper but counsel for the plaintiffs in his arguments
indicated that he was invoking the court’s inherent powers. The only ground
argued in this application by counsel for the plaintiffs can be found in
paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of the application which reads:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“6 That I
am informed by counsel and believe the same to be true that the order of 12
July 1984 is bad in law and not warranted by the rules of court and is of no
legal consequence in law.”<o:p></o:p><o:p></main>