NANA YAW OWUSU, PAUL NYANTAKYI AND MADAM ELLEN MENSAH vs. HYDROFORM ESTATES LTD [2012]DLCA8618

Date	2012-03-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO.HI/136/2011
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA8618

APALOO J.A

DUOSE J.A.

OFOE J.A.

MR. AYIKOI OTOO FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS.

MR. BROOKMAN-AMISSAH FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.

[2012]DLCA8618
																																						<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" >NANA YAW
OWUSU, PAUL NYANTAKYI AND MADAM ELLEN MENSAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>HYDROFORM ESTATES LTD<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0"><o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO.HI/136/2011&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; &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: 28TH
MARCH, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
AYIKOI OTOO FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS. <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MR.
BROOKMAN-AMISSAH FOR DEFENDANT/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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

APALOO
J.A, DUOSE J.A., OFOE J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>OFOE, J.A:<o:p></o:p>The appellants lost their case before the trial
High Court and have appealed to this court seeking a reversal of the judgment
and in its place give judgment in their favour. In the trial court they sought
for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant/respondent company from
interfering with their quiet enjoyment and possession of the land in dispute.
The defendant/respondent fought the case with a counterclaim which they won.
Their counterclaim was for a declaration of title to the parcel of land of
which the land in dispute forms a part, recovery of possession of all that part
encroached upon by the plaintiffs, an order for demolition of all structures
the plaintiffs have erected on this land, damages for trespass and costs.<o:p></o:p>We will refer to the appellants as the plaintiffs
and the respondent as the defendant i.e. the description they bore at the trial
High Court. What were the respective cases they put before the trial court? But
before then what grievances did the plaintiffs have against the trial court’s
judgment. They have formulated them into four grounds of appeal which I produce
hereunder.<o:p></o:p>“1. The judgment is against
the weight of evidence adduced at the trial<o:p></o:p>2.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
learned trial judge erred in law when he treated the previous judgment upon
which the plaintiff/appellants acquired their land as reliance on the pleas of
estoppels or res judicata.<o:p></o:p>3.