MARY QUAYSON vs. TEMA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [2016]DLCA5324

Date	2016-05-16
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL SUIT NO. H1/35/16
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA5324

GYAESAYOR JA (PRESIDING)

KORBIEH JA

DZAMEFE JA

CYNTHIA SHORPH-TAGOE FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

OPOKU-WARE BOATENG FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2016]DLCA5324
																																						<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" >MARY QUAYSON <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TEMA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<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">

CIVIL APPEAL SUIT NO. H1/35/16&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 16TH
MAY, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>CYNTHIA SHORPH-TAGOE FOR
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT<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">

OPOKU-WARE
BOATENG 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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

GYAESAYOR
JA (PRESIDING), KORBIEH JA, DZAMEFE JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div>DZAMEFE, JA<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff/appellant
hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff issued this writ against the
defendant/respondent referred to as defendant in the High Court, Accra for the
following reliefs:<o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo7">A
 declaration that plaintiff obtained a valid permit from defendant to
 construct extension to H/No. 1/P-31, Site 15, Community 1, Tema.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo7">A
 declaration that the act of defendant in demolishing the extension works
 of H/No. 1/P-31, Site 15, Community 1, Tema is unlawful.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo7">An
 order directed at defendant to reconstruct the 2 rooms extension to H/No.
 1/P-31, Site 15, Community 1, Tema.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo7">An
 order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, its agents,
 assigns, workmen and all those claiming through it from interfering with
 the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the property by plaintiff.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo7">General
 damages for the inconvenience caused by the demolishing acts of defendant.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>The plaintiff in her
statement of claim, averred she acquired a property from the defendant
described as H/No. 1/P-31 Site 15, Community 1, Tema in 1989.&nbsp; She applied and obtained a permit numbered
BP/C01/04/57 from the defendant on 10th February 2011 to construct
extension to her property.&nbsp; The extension
involved the construction of two additional rooms.<o:p></o:p>In course of the
construction an officer from the defendant company Mr. Acquah informed her some
people had protested against the construction work as such there was going to
be a meeting between her and the defendant company to resolve&nbsp; the issue and she will be informed
accordingly. While waiting for the meeting, agents of the defendants on 9th
August 2011 came to demolish the construction carried out.<o:p></o:p>Plaintiff states this
action by the defendant is unreasonable, unjust and unfair hence this suit.<o:p></o:p>The defendant in their
defence did admit initially granting a building permit to the plaintiff dated
23rd November 2005 which was later renewed on 5th
February 2011.&nbsp; The defendant avers that
the permit given the plaintiff was for the purpose of constructing a “Block
Kiosk”.&nbsp; When she applied for renewal of
the building permit, she was directed to make some changes.&nbsp; The changes approved by the defendant is for
the plaintiff to construct only a block kiosk and according to the specifications
made in the approved drawing of the plaintiff. It is the defendants’ case that
in course of the construction they received complaints that the plaintiff was
developing the block kiosk contrary to the approved drawings.&nbsp; They alerted the plaintiff, asking her to
conform to the approved plan but she failed to do so and constructed the
building contrary to the approved plan.&nbsp;
The defendants put a “stop work produce
pe</main>