ROULA ZRAIK vs. TRANSLAS LIMITED, HUSSEIN ZRAIK AND MILLICENT APPAH [2017]DLSC2566

Date	2017-05-10
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/13/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLSC2566

YEBOAH JSC PRESIDING

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

AKOTO-BAMFO JSC

APPAU JSC

OPOKU AMPONSAH FOR THE 3RD DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.

JOSEPH EVANS ABEKAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

[2017]DLSC2566
																																						<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" >ROULA ZRAIK<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TRANSLAS LIMITED, HUSSEIN ZRAIK AND MILLICENT APPAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, 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 NO. J4/13/2017&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 10TH MAY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>OPOKU AMPONSAH FOR THE 3RD
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/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">

JOSEPH
EVANS ABEKAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>YEBOAH, JSC PRESIDING BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC GBADEGBE, JSC AKOTO-BAMFO, JSC
AND APPAU, JSC <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="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;YAW APPAU, JSC:-<o:p></o:p>The fundamental issue raised in this appeal, which
is a second appeal by the Appellant, having lost the first appeal in the Court
of Appeal is; Whether or not the
ownership of the disputed properties described as Plot Nos. D3, D4, D6, D7, D8,
D9 and D14, Apremdo – Takoradi, had already been determined between the two
parties by a court of competent jurisdiction as at the time the Respondent
instituted this action in the trial High Court on 11th February,
2011.<o:p></o:p>The genesis of this appeal is that; the Respondent
herein instituted action in the High Court, Sekondi as the majority shareholder
in a company by name Cream Timber Moulding Company Limited (hereinafter
referred to as Cream Timbers). Her claim, initially, was against two
defendants, namely; TRANSLAS LIMITED and her own uncle by name HUSSEIN ZRAIK,
as 1st and 2nd Defendants respectively. The reliefs
sought in the claim against the Defendants jointly and severally were for:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An order
setting aside whatever agreement existing between the Defendants, which agreement
gave the 1st Defendant the right to reside and carry on business on
Cream Timbers’ premises on Plot Nos. D3, D4, D6, D7, D8, D9 and D14, Apremdo
Industrial Area, Takoradi as illegal and invalid;<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An order of
perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, whether by
itself , its agents, assigns, privies, servants etc. and the like howsoever
from entering the said plots of land either to reside or to carry on business
thereon; and<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Damages for
trespass.<o:p></o:p>Her case in brief was that the said properties
belonged to Cream Timbers of which she was the majority shareholder with 60%
shares while the 2nd Defendant was the minority shareholder with 40%
shares. She became a majority shareholder by succession per a judgment of the
High Court dated 26th July 2002. However, she did not know how the 1st
Defendant came to settle on the land. She was therefore praying the trial court
to nullify any purported agreement entered into between the 1st
Defendant and the 2nd Defendant that permitted the 1st
Defendant to settle on the properties, since she was not a party to any such
agreement. She also prayed for an order to restrain the 1st
Defendant from entering and doing business on the said properties and damages
for trespass. The Appellant herein, from whom the 1st Defendant
rented the property in dispute, successfully applied to join the action as the
3rd Defendant.<o:p></o:p>From the totality of the evidence on record and
particularly the unchallenged case put across by the defendants, the 1st
and 2nd Defendants did not even know each other so they could not
have entered into any agreement over the disputed properties. In fact, the
Respondent did not establish in any way that there existed any agreement
between the 1st and 2nd Defendants which the trial court
had to nullify as she prayed.&nbsp; The 1st
relief sought by the Respondent in her claim was therefore dead from birth.
However, aside of the 1st relief, the Respondent prayed for two
other reliefs. These were: (i) an injunction to restrain the 1st Defendant and her agents,
etc. from ente</main>