MODERN KOSA LTD vs. KOFI DANSO [2018]DLHC3448

Date	2018-11-08
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ 1161/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3448

ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ.JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2018]DLHC3448
																																						<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" >MODERN KOSA LTD<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KOFI DANSO<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
(GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION), 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">

SUIT NO. GJ
1161/2018&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;8TH
NOVEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>ERIC K. BAFFOUR, ESQ.JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<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="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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>Defendant/Applicant
seeks an order for a mandatory interlocutory injunction to compel the Plaintiff
to remove an iron corrugated fence erected by the Plaintiff over the perimeters
of the building, which the Applicant claim is the subject matter of the suit
and for any further orders to restrain the Plaintiff from any interference with
the property of the Defendant till the final determination of the suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Plaintiff/Respondent
seeks per its writ recovery of liquidated sums being monies it claim Applicant
owes him for renting out premises at Abossey Okai, having first led and
introduced Plaintiff to purchase that property and becoming a care taker of the
property. To Plaintiff/Respondent as it needed the premises for its business, it
had to reimburse the tenants placed in occupation of the Abossey Okai premises
their rent that they had paid to Applicant. And having paid all the monies
involved it seeks to recover same from Applicant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Defendant/Applicant
in his defence denied the claim of owing the Plaintiff/Respondent and rather
counterclaimed for the cancellation of the indenture in the name of the
Plaintiff/Respondent, recovery of the sum of Gh¢50,000 as monies advanced to
the CEO of Plaintiff/Respondent company, recovery of an amount of Gh¢80,000 as
cost of a Tundra vehicle in the possession of the Plaintiff/Respondent,
recovery of 125,000 Euros as monies invested in Plaintiff’s company and finally
recovery of Gh¢550,000 as purchase price of a two acre land at Dansoman. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I
have deliberately recounted the respective claims of the parties in order to
illume one’s understanding of the background to this application and also
situate it within the context of this application for injunction to compel
Respondent to remove the corrugated sheets. Applicant claim that he is
asserting ownership over the property and hence the application to preserve the
status quo of the building.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Order
25 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C. I. 47 states as
follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“The court may grant an
injunction by an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the
court to&nbsp; be just or 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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
an application for interlocutory injunction it is the duty of the Applicant to
demonstrate a number of factors, among which are, that there is a right that
ought to be protected at law or in equity, that greater and irreparable
hardship will be occasioned by the refusal of the application, that the
application is not frivolous or vexatious and that compensation may not be
adequate remedy. See the following cases: OWUSU
v OWUSU ANSAH [2007-2008] SCGLR 870 at 875, VANDERPUYE v NARTEY [1977] 1 GLR 428; AMERICAN CYNAMID CO v ETHICON CO. LTD [1975] AC 396, THOMAS APPIAH ANSAH v NANA KATAKYIRE II
Suit No. H1/154/11CA.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>What
is at the heart of the claims and counterclaims are recovery of monies that
each claim is due him. Applicant specifically claim recovery of monies for various
sums given to Respondent or its CEO, payment made for a vehicle, monies paid
for a land at Dansoman. The Abossey Okai property might have been one of the
grounds that might have precipitated the respective action but it is not at the
heart and the subject matter of the dispute even though I concede that
Applicant in his claim seeks an order for the cancellation of the indenture but
nowhere in his counter claim does he seeks for a declaration in his favour as
owner of the property or for a transfer of ownership to him. The fact of
Applicant not seeking to recover the Abossey Okai property or the Dansoman land
or recovery of the Tundra vehicle is a testament to the fact that the counter
claim of Applicant is essentially a claim for monetary value for whatever
monies he avers to be entitled to.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>The
monies that Applicant claim are due him may conveniently if he succeeds in this
action be awarded him without the property being affected at all and I think
condoning off the property for the purposes of development by Respondent should
not be visited with any kind of injunction from the court in view of the claims
and counter claims of the parties.<o:p></o:p>For
the short reason preferred I find no just or convenient cause to grant this
application and same is declined.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><sp</main>