NANA BLAY KWOFIE vs. MADAM ROSE BLISSET AND 2 OTHERS [2016]DLCA5562

Date	2016-02-23
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. HI/45/15
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA5562

HONYENUGA J.A. (PRESIDING)

GYAN J.A.

SUURBAAREH J.A.

MR. LAWRENCE ASANTE AHENKORAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS/ APPELLANTS

MR. PHILIP NKRUMAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2016]DLCA5562
																																						<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 BLAY KWOFIE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MADAM ROSE BLISSET AND 2 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO. HI/45/15&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; 23RD
FEBRUARY, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
LAWRENCE ASANTE AHENKORAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS/ APPELLANTS<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">

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>HONYENUGA
J.A. (PRESIDING), GYAN J.A., SUURBAAREH J.A.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>HONYENUGA,
J.A.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal against the Ruling of the High Court, Tarkwa dated the 12th
day of January, 2015. The trial High Court had granted an interlocutory
injunction restraining the defendants/appellants from in anyway interfering
with or dealing with the land in dispute until the final determination of the
case. The defendants/appellants would be referred to as the appellants and the
plaintiff/respondent as the respondents.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By their
writ of summons which was accompanied by a statement of claim, the respondents
claimed against the appellants as follows:<o:p></o:p>“(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A declaration that the
Tufuhene of Oyoko family of Himan represented by it (sic) accredited elders
have gifted all that parcel of land lying at Prestea and bounded on the Norther
by the Ariston North Concession Number CV 734, on the South by the Himan
Divisional Stool Land, on the East by the Intermediate Concession Number CV 215
M &amp; T and in the West by New Ekotokroo Concession Number CV 509.<o:p></o:p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Perpetual injunction
restraining the defendants either by themselves, their agents, servants,
workmen, privies from interfering with the plaintiff’s ownership, possession or
occupation of the said land.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; General damages for trespass”.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent filed an ex-parte motion for interim injunction to restrain the
appellants and others from interfering with the disputed land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
application was granted to last for ten days. Thereafter, the appellants
entered conditional appearance. The defendants filed a statement of defence and
counterclaim as follows:<o:p></o:p>“i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Declaration of title in
the name of the family to the land, subject matter of dispute.<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Declaration that the
true intention of the family as indicated in a letter dated 18th
March, 2008 was to appoint the plaintiff caretaker over the land, subject
matter of dispute.<o:p></o:p>iii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Declaration that the
plaintiff is estopped by conduct from doing or acting contrary to the parties’
true intention captured in the letter dated 18th March, 2008.<o:p></o:p>iv.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order for the
delivery up of the site plan in the plaintiff’s possession for cancellation by
the court;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; v.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Recovery of possession;<o:p></o:p>vi.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An injunction
restraining the plaintiff, his agents, assigns, privies or howsoever called
from having any dealings with the land, subject matter of dispute, except in
his capacity as a member of the family; and<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; vii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Accounts”.<o:p></o:p>Before
the appellant could file their statement of defence and counterclaim, the
respondent filed a motion on notice for an order of interlocutory injunction to
restrain the appellants by themselves, </main>