LARRY BLACKMORE vs. BERNARD KLUTSEY [2017]DLCA5259

Date	2017-04-27
Suit No.	CIVIL SUIT NO.H1/26/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLCA5259

M. OWUSU (J.A.) – PRESIDING

WELBOURNE (J.A.)

SOWAH (J.A.)

JUSTICE ABDULAI FOR APPELLANT

JOE ABOAGYE DEBRAH FOR RESPONDENT

[2017]DLCA5259
																																						<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" >LARRY BLACKMORE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BERNARD KLUTSEY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/ 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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CIVIL SUIT NO.H1/26/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 27TH APRIL, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>JUSTICE
ABDULAI FOR 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">

JOE
ABOAGYE DEBRAH FOR RESPONDENT&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

M.
OWUSU (J.A.) – PRESIDING, WELBOURNE (J.A.), SOWAH (J.A.)<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</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="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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>MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Order 25 of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, C. I. 47 deals with interlocutory injunction,
interim preservation of property.<o:p></o:p>Order 25 rule 1 (1) of C.
I. 47 provides that:<o:p></o:p>“The court may grant an injunction by
an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just
and convenient to do so, and the order may be made either unconditionally or
upon such terms and conditions as the court considers just.”<o:p></o:p>On 5th August,
2015, the plaintiff/applicant/appellant (herein referred to as appellant) filed
motion on notice for interlocutory injunction pursuant to order 25 rule 1 (1)
of C. I. 47 seeking to restrain the defendant/respondent/respondent (herein
referred to as respondent) from dealing with the land in dispute.<o:p></o:p>The basis of the
application was that, the High Court on 1st September, 2011 granted
an interim injunction to restrain the respondent from a wall he was
constructing.&nbsp; Subsequent to the said
injunction, the respondent commenced series of construction works, building a
house on portions of the land belonging to the appellant.&nbsp; It is the case of the appellant that, he has
owned his land since 2002 and has been in peaceful possession until now.&nbsp; The appellant concluded that, the earlier
application was in respect of the piece of land the respondent was developing
and not necessarily the wall the latter was constructing at the time.&nbsp; That the continuous developing of the land by
the respondent will negatively affect the nature of appellant’s land/property,
which cannot be compensated for in monetary terms, hence the application.<o:p></o:p>The respondent vehemently
opposed the application and filed affidavit in opposition to that effect.&nbsp; In particular, the respondent deposed that,
the High Court had already ruled on the same application and granted an order
of injunction against both parties on the same set of facts in respect of the
disputed land and that the current application was an abuse of the court’s
process.<o:p></o:p>Secondly, the respondent
has not entered the appellant’s land but rather is the latter who has
encroached on the respondent’s land.&nbsp; He
concluded that, the suit between the parties is essentially a boundary dispute
and in view of the pending order of injunction, the application should be
refused as same is unmeritorious. <o:p></o:p>After going through the
respective affidavits, the statement of case as well as the exhibits attached
to the affidavit in support and in opposition, the High Court dismissed the
application.<o:p></o:p>In her ruling, the trial
High Court Judge held that it would not be just and convenient to restrain the
respondent.&nbsp; To do so will occasion
hardship on him as the balance of inconvenience weighs heavily in his
favour.&nbsp; Secondly, that was the third
time the appellant filed an application for an order to injunct the respondent
on the same facts and that was an abuse of the court’s process.<o:p></o:p>Dissat</main>