QUANSAH vs. QUANSAH [1986]DLCA962

Date	1986-06-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1986]DLCA962

ABBAN JA

OSEI-HWERE JA

AMPIAH JA

DE GRAFT AIDOO FOR THE APPELLANT.

DR EKOW DANIELS FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1986]DLCA962
																																						<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">

QUANSAH <o:p></o:p>

{COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 1 GLR 718<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
19 JUNE 1986<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">

DE
GRAFT AIDOO FOR THE APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

DR
EKOW DANIELS 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">

ABBAN, OSEI-HWERE AND AMPIAH JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>On 12
June 1986 we dismissed this appeal and reserved our reasons. We now proceed to
give our reasons.<o:p></o:p>On 4
October 1985 the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff)
instituted an action against the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the
defendant) claiming:<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">“1. Declaration
that the plaintiff is the lawful and legal owner of the house No PVL 290A,
Akotokyir, in the Cape Coast District; <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">2. An
order for continued possession; 3. injunction restraining the defendant, his
agents, servants, employees and assigns from in any way interfering with the
plaintiff’s quiet and peaceful enjoyment and possession of the said house; <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">4. an
order for account of the plaintiff’s property left in the said house and the
general household effects; and <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">5.
damages.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Soon
after the writ of summons had been issued, the plaintiff filed an application
for an order of interim injunction praying the court to -<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">“grant an
injunction by an interlocutory order restraining the defendant, his agents,
servants, employees and concubines from interfering with the plaintiff’s
peaceful possession and quiet enjoyment of the plaintiff’s house No PVL 290A,
Akotokyir, in the Cape Coast District together with all its belongings and the
plaintiff’s personal effects left in the said house . . .”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The trial
judge heard this application and on 30 October 1985 he dismissed it. It was
this dismissal of the application which was appealed against. It was the
contention of the plaintiff that:<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">“(a) the
trial judge misunderstood the nature of the declaratory action instituted by
the plaintiff. <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">(b) The
trial judge took into consideration matters which are not relevant for the
determination of the application before the court; <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">(c) The
trial judge ignored incontrovertible facts which support the plaintiff’s claim;
and (d) the ruling or decision is against the weight of the facts deposed to in
the affidavit.”<o:p></o:p>