OWUSU AND ANOTHER vs. DWOMOH [1992]DLCA4249

Date	1992-11-05
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1992]DLCA4249

ESSIEM JA

AMUAH JA

LUTTERODT JA

AFARI YEBOAH FOR THE APPLICANTS.

KWAKU GYAN (FOR TOTOE) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1992]DLCA4249
																																						<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" >OWUSU AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DWOMOH<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<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">

[1993
- 4] 1 GBR 401 – 402&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 5 NOVEMBER 1992<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AFARI YEBOAH FOR THE
APPLICANTS.<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">

KWAKU
GYAN (FOR TOTOE) 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 1.0pt 0in">

ESSIEM
JA, AMUAH JA, LUTTERODT JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>ESSIEM JA. By a judgment
of the circuit court, Kumasi, the respondents were granted two reliefs against
the applicants namely:<o:p></o:p>“(1) A declaration that House No. 8 at
Mampong Ashanti is the Stool House of the Sanaa stool of Mampong Ashanti and
that it is the official residence of the occupant of Sanaa stool of Mampong.<o:p></o:p>(2) That a cocoa farm lying at a place
commonly known as “Nwaadanha” and having boundaries with the properties of Kofi
Awuah, Kofi Donkor, Kwame Kaaso and Nwadan River is the property of Sanaa stool
of Mampong.”<o:p></o:p>The applicants say they
have appealed against this judgment claiming the properties in question as
their family property. The appeal has not yet been heard.<o:p></o:p>The evidence shows that
the applicants were in possession before the purported execution by the
respondents.<o:p></o:p>It emerged from argument
that the keys to the house have been deposited with the High Court, Kumasi. It
also emerged that the said ejectment was effected about 8 years ago.<o:p></o:p>The applicants have come
to this court to ask for a stay of execution, an application which is opposed
by the respondents. The respondents contend in their affidavit in opposition
that the application is not made in good faith, neither is it made timeously.<o:p></o:p>It will be seen that the
reliefs granted by the court, supra, did not include one for recovery of
possession. The respondents have not taken steps to secure such an order before
they went into execution.<o:p></o:p>Since the judgment did not
grant the respondents any relief for recovery of possession, they had no legal
right to take over the house in dispute. If they need recovery of possession,
they have to go to court for such an order.<o:p></o:p>The applicants seek an
order of stay of execution or injunction restraining the plaintiff from
ejecting them from the house. As there is no judgment for possession, plaintiff
should be restrained from interfering with the possession of the applicants. We
will therefore grant the application and restrain the respondents from interfering
with the applicants’ possession of the house.<o:p></o:p>I shall like to refer to
Dzotefe v Hahormene III [1984-86] 1 GLR 305 at 307, per Amua-Sekyi JA mainly to
guide counsel:<o:p></o:p>“[In] Dzotepe v Hahormene III
[1984-86] 1 GLR 289, CA the court said per Apaloo CJ at page 292:<o:p></o:p>“... It is elementary that the writ of
possession is only issued to enforce a judgment for possession of land. If
there is no judgment for possession, there plainly can be no jurisdiction to
order the issuance of a writ of possession ... “<o:p></o:p>We entirely agree that
since the High Court did not by its judgment decree possession in favour of the
plaintiffs, they are not entitled to take out a writ of possession for the
purpose of recovering possession from the defendants.”<o:p></o:p>

We shall therefore order
the registrar of the court below to put applicants back in possession pending
the final determination of the appeal.<o:p></o:p></main>