MAHAMA AND ANOTHER vs. MOSHIE [1986]DLHC940

Date	1986-09-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1986]DLHC940

BERKO AG. J.

A. A. LUGUTERAH FOR THE APPLICANTS.

IBRAHIM MAHAMA FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1986]DLHC940
																																						<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">

MAHAMA AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>

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

[1984-86] 2 GLR 708<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
1 SEPTEMBER 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">

A.
A. LUGUTERAH FOR THE APPLICANTS. <o:p></o:p>

IBRAHIM
MAHAMA 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">

BERKO AG. J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF BERKO AG. J.<o:p></o:p>The
applicants were plaintiffs in an action instituted against the
defendant-respondent in this court for the following reliefs:<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">&nbsp;(i) a declaration of title to that piece or
parcel of land situated in Tamale with a building thereon and known as plot No.
46 in Ward A including title to the five rooms thereon—belonging to the
co-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">(ii)
perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, successors and
assigns from entering upon or doing anything on the said land and a further
order restraining the defendant, his agents, successors and assigns from
interfering with the co-plaintiff’s rights, title or enjoyment of her five
rooms on plot No. 46, Tamale;<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">(iii) an
order of account to be rendered by the defendant to the plaintiff for all rents
and other moneys received by him due to the estate of the late Kurita Moshie;<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">(iv) Damages
for interfering with the estate of the late Kurita Moshie; 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">(v) An
order revoking the letters of administration granted to the defendant either
alone or with others in either May or July 1978.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 4 July
1985 the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendant were dismissed. The court
awarded costs of ¢600 against each of the plaintiffs in favour of the
defendant. The plaintiffs appealed against the judgment of this court delivered
on 4 July 1985 to the Court of Appeal by notice of appeal filed on 9 July 1985.
The plaintiffs hereafter applied to this court on 15 July 1985 for stay of
execution pending the determination of their appeal to this court of Appeal.
This application was granted on 18 November 1985 subject to the payment of
costs of ¢1,200 by the plaintiffs forthwith to the defendant. The plaintiffs
applied to the court to review the conditional order of stay of execution
granted on 18 November 1985 but that application was refused with costs of ¢100
in favour of the defendant. On 17 January 1986 the plaintiffs made a fresh
application to the Court of Appeal for stay of execution.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At this
stage it is relevant to state who have been solicitors for the parties from the
commencement of the action. The original writ was issued in 1978 by E. D.
Mahami as solicitor for the plaintiffs. Appearance was entered on behalf of the
defendant by G. K. Mensa of Maligu Chambers, Tamale, who later on became known
and called Mensa-Etsi. On 7 April 1981 A. A. Luguterah of Lugu Chambers, Tamale
was appointed solicitor by the plaintiffs in place of E. D. Mahami. This is
evidenced by the notice of change of solicitors filed by A. A. Luguterah on 7
April 1981. This is how the parties were represented when judgment was
delivered on 4 July 1985, that is to say A. A. Luguterah as solicitor for the
plaintiffs and Mensa-Etsi for the defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 5 July
1985 entry of judgment was filed on behalf of the defendant by Ibrahim Mahama
as solicitor for the defendant and this was signed by J. B. Domale for Ibrahim
Mahama. It is significant to note </main>