STEPHEN KWARTENG KWANING & ANOTHER vs. NANA AGYEMANG TETUA & 2 OTHERS [2017]DLHC4164

Date	2017-05-11
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC 31/2016
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC4164

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

KOJO DEI KWARTENG FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS

J. K. KODUAH FOR THE 1ST & 3RD DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2017]DLHC4164
																																						<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" >STEPHEN KWARTENG KWANING
&amp; ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA AGYEMANG TETUA &amp; 2 OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), KUMASI]<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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

SUIT&nbsp;NO. OCC 31/2016&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 11TH MAY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p>KOJO DEI KWARTENG FOR
PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS <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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</div><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>On 11 March, 2016, the
Plaintiffs/Applicants herein brought this instant application for an
interlocutory injunction against the Defendants/Respondents herein. The
Plaintiffs/Applicants are praying this honourable court to restrain the
Defendants/Respondents or their servants, assigns or agents, hirelings in any
manner whatsoever from interfering with plaintiffs/applicants’ rights and
interest in the disputed property until final determination of the suit.<o:p></o:p>By a writ of summons and
statement of claim the plaintiffs/applicants seek the following reliefs against
the defendants/respondents: <o:p></o:p>a.
An order for specific performance of the lease agreement of H/No. NT 132 Blk
11,Odumasi, Asante Akyem dated December 21, 2015 between the plaintiffs and the
1st and 2nd defendants and based on which the plaintiffs paid to the 1st and
2nd defendants part payment which payment was acknowledged by a receipt.<o:p></o:p>b.
Damages for breach of lease agreement between the plaintiffs and the 1st and
2nd defendants and based on which the plaintiffs paid to the 1st and 2nd
defendants part payment which payment was acknowledged by a receipt.<o:p></o:p>c.
Recovery of legal fees and other expenses for this litigation.<o:p></o:p>d.
Costs<o:p></o:p>e.
Any other order or orders that the honourable court deems fit.<o:p></o:p>From the plaintiffs/applicants’
statement of case and affidavit&nbsp; in &nbsp;evidence, they paid to the 2nd defendant
an agreed amount of GH₡25,000 and 950 Euros
respectively &nbsp;for a 25 years lease of the
disputed property. It is the applicants’ case that the 2nd defendant
acted on behalf of the 1st defendant and his siblings. Applicants
further submitted that the 2nd defendant issued a receipt to them
for the payment and a draft lease agreement was also given to them for study
and subsequent execution. The applicants have noticed development works on the
property without their consent and that has necessitated the instant
application. The applicants are seeking to prevent any further works on the
disputed property pending the hearing of the substantive suit.<o:p></o:p>Counsel for the applicants
submitted that the applicants’ case is not frivolous and that on a balance
convenience there is the need to maintain the status quo ante as the applicants
will suffer irreparable damage if the interlocutory injunction is not granted.
Counsel cited the following cases to back his argument: Bilson vs Rawlings [1993/1994] 2GLR 413; Musicians Union of Ghana vs Abraham [1982/83] 1GLR 337 and Vanderpuye vs Nartey [1977] 1GLR 428.<o:p></o:p>On the other hand, the 1st
defendant/respondent by his affidavit in opposition and statement of case claimed
that he and his siblings have no agency or retainer agreement with the 2nd
defendant to warrant him to make contracts on their behalf. He insisted that the
plaintiffs are not known to them and any agreement entered into between the
plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant is not binding on him and his family. The 1st
defendant/respondent further stated that he and his siblings are effecting
repair works to the property to enhance its value and that the repairs will not
in any way inconvenience the plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p>Counsel for the 1st
and 3rd Defendants/Respondents also cited Vanderpuye
vs Nartey [1977] 1GLR 428 and submitted that the case of
plaintiffs/applicants is clearly frivolous and vexatious and it is not one in
which an order of interlocutory injunction can be granted. He further submitted
that no inconvenience and irreparable damage can be caused to the plaintiffs in
the circumstances of this case to warrant the grant of an injunction.<o:p></o:p>