DR. CADMAN MILLS SUING AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN EVANS ATTA MILLS (SNR) ATTA MILLS FARMSTEAD, ELMINA vs. NANA TANDOH (A.K.A. BEN HANSON JNR) AND 8 OTHERS [2015]DLCA8412

DR. CADMAN MILLS SUING AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN EVANS ATTA MIL... [2015]DLCA8412

Date	2015-11-28
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/41/15
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA8412

C. J. HONYENUGA J.A. (PRESIDING)

S. K. GYAN J.A.

G. S. SUURBAAREH J.A.

MR. AMPONSAH DADZIE FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS

MR. EMMANUEL BECKLEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2015]DLCA8412
																																						<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" >DR. CADMAN MILLS SUING AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF
JOHN EVANS ATTA MILLS (SNR) ATTA MILLS FARMSTEAD, ELMINA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/
RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA TANDOH (A.K.A. BEN HANSON JNR) AND 8 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/ APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, CAPECOAST]<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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO.&nbsp; H1/41/15&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 NOV, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
AMPONSAH DADZIE FOR THE DEFENDANTS/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. EMMANUEL BECKLEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

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

C. J. HONYENUGA J.A. (PRESIDING), S.
K. GYAN J.A., G. S. SUURBAAREH 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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>HONYENUGA,
J.A.<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against the Ruling of the High Court, Cape Coast dated the 29th
day of July 2014.&nbsp; The trial High court
had granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the parties from further
development on the land in dispute.&nbsp; The
plaintiff/respondent would be referred to as the respondent and the
defendants/appellants as the appellants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By
his amended writ of summons which was accompanied by a statement of claim, the
respondent claimed as the administrator of the estate of the late John Evans
Atta Mills (Snr) against the defendants jointly and severally for:-<o:p></o:p>“a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A declaration of title to
the 51.98 acre of land at Essaman, near Elmina in the Komenda-Edina-Eguafo
District and which land is more particularly described in the plan attached
hereto.<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order of injunction
restraining the defendants and each of them, whether by themselves, their
agents, assigns, privies, servants etc however described from entering the
51.98 acres of land described in (a) above and/or having anything whatsoever to
do with the said land.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order setting any
alienation of land made by the defendants to any person(s) of any portion of
the 51.98 acres of land aforesaid.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;d.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Recovery
of possession.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;e.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Damages
for trespass.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;f.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order of specific performance compelling the defendants
to convey to the plaintiff the 51.98 acres of land at Essaman, aforesaid”.<o:p></o:p>The
1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th appellants
entered an appearance and filed a statement of defence.&nbsp; The 8th and 9th
defendants were later joined to the suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>However,
the plaintiff filed a motion on notice for an order of interlocutory injunction
to restrain the defendants, their servants, agents, privies, assigns etc from
entering any portion of the land in dispute.&nbsp;
The motion was opposed by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd,
5th, 7th, 8th and 9th appellants.
After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned trial judge on the 21st
day of July granted an interlocutory injunction restraining both parties from
any further development of the land in dispute pending the final determination
of the suit.&nbsp; The plaintiff was ordered
to file an Undertaking to pay damages and until he filed the undertaking, the
injunction was not to take effect.&nbsp; The
learned trial judge also directed the parties to file an Application for
Directions for an expedited hearing – and further ordered that farm lands could
still be cultivated.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>