KING ODAIFIO WELENTSE III vs. T & T PROPERTIES LTD. AND TORGBOR MENSAH [2014]DLCA2894

Date	2014-06-26
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/144/2013
Citation No.	[2014]DLCA2894

KUSI APPIAH (JA) ( PRESIDING )

V D OFOE ( JA)

MARGARET WELBOURNE MRS. (JA)

[2014]DLCA2894
																																						<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" >KING
ODAIFIO WELENTSE III<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>T &amp; T PROPERTIES LTD.
AND TORGBOR MENSAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO. H1/144/2013&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: 26TH
JUNE, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>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 1.0pt 0in">

<o:p>&nbsp;</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">

KUSI APPIAH (JA) ( PRESIDING
) V D OFOE (JAMARGARET WELBOURNE MRS. (JA)<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>MARGARET
WELBOURNE J.A.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Plaintiff’s (hereinafter refer to as Respondent) appeal is against the ruling
of the High Court delivered on 20th February 2013.<o:p></o:p>Brief Facts<o:p></o:p>On
2nd November 2012, the Respondent filed a motion on notice for
Interlocutory injunction seeking to restrain the Defendants (hereinafter referred
to as Appellants), their workmen, assigns and privies from changing the status
quo of the land in dispute.&nbsp; The Respondent
contended that the Appellants were given an assignment of the land by Ghanachix
Farms.&nbsp; The Respondent claimed that the
land in dispute is part of Nungua Stool Lands which was taken over by the Tema
Development Corporation (TDC) and that the Appellants are building on the land
notwithstanding all caution and warnings.&nbsp;
The Appellants opposed the Respondent’s application and contended that
the Respondent does not own the land and that neither does he have any title or
right or interest in the land in dispute.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Appellants applied to the TDC who thereafter leased a piece of land (which is
part of the land acquired by the Government) to the Appellants for a term of 60
years.&nbsp; He further applied to TMA to
develop the land and was granted a building permit.&nbsp; Thus as far as the Appellants was concerned,
it had duly acquired a right title and interest in the land in dispute from the
TDC; the rightful owner of the land.&nbsp; It
was the contention of the Appellants that after the acquisition of the land by
the Government in 1952, the Respondent lost any title, right or interest in the
land in dispute.&nbsp; The Appellants
contended that although the Respondent in paragraph 5 of his affidavit in
support of his application stated that he has duly registered the land in dispute,
he failed to exhibit the said registered document to his application.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
29th November 2012, the leaned trial Judge dismissed the
Respondent’s application as devoid of any merit and awarded cost of GH¢500.00
against him. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
19th December 2012, the Respondent filed the same application before
the same Court and deposed to the same facts which were deposed to in the
earlier application that was dismissed.&nbsp;
The only difference was that the Respondent attached a site plan which
he claimed is the site plan of the Appellants.&nbsp;
The Appellants in their Affidavit in Opposition to the motion relied on
the averments in the earlier affidavit filed on 14th November 2012
in opposition to the Respondent’s first motion.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Appellants contended that the second application was irregular because no fresh
points or facts had been raised. It is against the ruling that this instant
appeal had been made.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
grounds of appeal are the following:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The trial Judge erred in granting the
Respondent’s application for interlocutory injunction when the Respondent
failed to establish a right or interest in the land, the subject matter of the
suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>CONSIDERATION<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the Appellants argued that the leaned trial Judge erred in granting the
Respondent’s application for the following reasons:&nbsp; In the first place the second application did
not raise any fresh poi</main>