BUNZU AND ANOTHER vs. ABBEYMAN FAMILY STOOL [1993]DLCA4324

Date	1993-06-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1993]DLCA4324

ESSIEM JA

ADJABENG JA

LUTTERODT JA

PETER ADJETEY WITH HIM WILLIAM ADDO FOR THE APPLICANTS.

AYIKOI OTOO WITH HIM LAWRENCE TAGOE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1993]DLCA4324
																																						<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" >BUNZU AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ABBEYMAN FAMILY STOOL<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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">

[1992-93] 2 G B R 884 - 887&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 24 JUNE 1993<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>PETER
ADJETEY, WITH HIM WILLIAM ADDO, 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">

AYIKOI
OTOO, WITH HIM LAWRENCE TAGOE, 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, ADJABENG JA, LUTTERODT JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>ESSIEM
JA. The applicants are the defendants-appellants in this suit now pending
before the High Court. Their application is for “an order staying execution of
the orders made by the High Court, Accra, following an application for interim
injunction by the plaintiff-respondent on 18 November 1992 pending the hearing
and determination of the appeal filed against the said orders”.<o:p></o:p>The
orders concerned were made upon application made to the court below for an
order of interim injunction against the defendants, now applicants before us.<o:p></o:p>The
court below had ruled that:<o:p></o:p>“I hereby grant the application and
make an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants their agents,
servants, assigns, privies, grantees from interfering in any way with the lands
in dispute pending the final determination of the suit.”<o:p></o:p>The
applicants, from the affidavits filed before the court, claim to be caretakers
for the Sempe stool which has itself applied successfully to join the suit as a
co-defendant. It is however clear that as at the time of this application the
Sempe stool has not filed any defence to the action.<o:p></o:p>The
applicants' application was accompanied by an affidavit in support, which in
part states:<o:p></o:p>“2. The action herein was instituted
against the other defendant and me by the plaintiff-respondent, claiming
against us jointly and severally, a declaration of title to a piece of land
described as Abbeyman family stool land, a declaration that we have been
removed as caretakers of the said lands, an order for accounts, perpetual
injunction and ¢50,000,000 damages for trespass.<o:p></o:p>3. On 18 November 1992, upon an
application filed by the plaintiff on 23 October 1992, the High Court, Accra,
granted an order of interim injunction restraining the other defendant and me,
our agents, servants, assigns, privies, grantees “or by whomsoever” from
interfering with the plaintiff's land pending the final determination of the
suit with costs against us.<o:p></o:p>4. Aggrieved by the said order of
interim injunction we have appealed to this court.<o:p></o:p>5. I am advised by counsel and verily
believe the same to be true that the said appeal has a reasonable chance of
success and that in the circumstances it would be unjust and unfair to allow
the execution of the orders made by the High Court, Accra, aforesaid on 18
November 1992 to proceed.<o:p></o:p>7. Great hardship would be occasioned
to us if execution of the said orders was not stayed pending the hearing and
determination of said appeal. I attach hereto marked B a photocopy of the
statement of claim filed by the plaintiff in this case and also marked C, a
photocopy of the statement of defence filed on behalf of the defendants.”<o:p></o:p>A reading
of the pleadings, especially paragraph 3 of the statement of claim, shows that
the plaintiff family claims ownership of the land in dispute and that it had
employed one Musa as caretaker over the said land. See also paragraph 4. It was
the said Musa who employed the defendants to help him in his work. The said
Musa is now dead. The plaintiff alleged in paragraph 17 of the statement of
claim that: “Plaintiff says that at present defendants have sold over 100 plots
of Abbeyman family stool lands”.<o:p></o:p>There
is no specific denial of the said paragraph 17 of the statement of claim in the
statement of defence filed by the defendants.<o:p></o:p>On
19 January 1993 the applicants, per Ibrahim Bunzu swore to a further affidavit,
paragraphs 10 and 17 of which state:<o:p></o:p>“10. In answer to paragraph 5 of the
said affidavit, I wish to say that although the defendants do not claim
ownership of the lands in dispute as a whole, they claim to be caretakers
thereof duly appointed by the Sempe stool but not the plaintiff's family and any
purported revocation of appointment by the plaintiff's family is consequently
of no relevance.<o:p></o:p>17. In answer to paragraph 14 of the
said affidavit, I say that the position that the defendants are taking in this
action is the position of caretakers protecting the interests of their
over-lord who has taken due steps to enter the action and join the plaintiff’s
fight to maintain his title.”<o:p></o:p>The
Sempe stool is now a party to this suit and surely should be able to protect
its interest. I have read critically the case of Asare v Dzeny [1976] 1 GLR 473
as well as Ballmoos v Mensah [1984-86] 1 GLR 724, CA, holding (1) and have
noted what they say.<o:p></o:p>I
am of the opinion that since the applicants are in no way claiming ownership of
the land except that they are caretakers of the land for the Sempe stool, which
is now a party to this suit, I do not see any justification for granting their
request.<o:p></o:p>