THE APOSTLES CONTINUATION CHURCH INTERNATIONAL vs. FRANCIS KWASI TEIKU AND PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF APOSTLES [2018]DLHC3481

THE APOSTLES CONTINUATION CHURCH INTERNATIONAL vs. FRANCIS KWASI TEIKU AND PENTE... [2018]DLHC3481

Date	2018-12-22
Suit No.	SUIT NO.GJ 1492/17
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3481

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2018]DLHC3481
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">THE
APOSTLES CONTINUATION CHURCH INTERNATIONAL<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>FRANCIS KWASI TEIKU AND PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF APOSTLES<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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 1492/17&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 22ND DECEMBER, 2018<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">

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<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">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>Permit
me to preface this ruling with the words of St. Paul, the Apostle to the
Gentiles that:<o:p></o:p>“Finally, brethren,
farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, <o:p></o:p>Be of one mind, and live
in peace; and the God of love and peace<o:p></o:p>Shall be with you.”<o:p></o:p>2
Corinthians 13: 11 (New Kings Version)<o:p></o:p>Far
cry from this glowing admonition for peace in the church, there is turmoil
between The Apostles Continuation Church International and the Pentecostal
Church of the Apostles that has culminated in the issuance of a writ by the
Plaintiff church.<o:p></o:p>By
this application the Plaintiff/Applicant is praying the court for the grant of
an order of what he terms as interim injunction to restrain Defendants and
their agents and assigns, privies and persons claiming through them from
unlawfully taking over what Plaintiff/Applicant claims is its church building at
Teshie –Agblezaa, &nbsp;a 38 seater bus with
registration number GW 5480 X as well as instruments, drums and rubber chairs
and also an order restraining the 2nd Defendant church from operating
or using the mentioned properties until the final determination of the suit. <o:p></o:p>It
is not in doubt that in the writ issued by the Plaintiffs the
Plaintiffs/Applicants seek for reliefs among which are an order of perpetual
injunction restraining the Defendants from holding himself out as the owner of
the church building 2nd Defendant is occupying, the 38 seater
Mercedes Benz, the musical instruments, drums and chairs and also an order
restraining the 1st Defendant from taking control of the vehicle or
declaring the church building 2nd Defendant is using as belonging to
the 2nd Defendant. This application is intended to prevent the use
of the properties by 2nd Defendant under the control of 1st
Defendant till the final determination of who has the legal and proprietary
rights over them. <o:p></o:p>In
the affidavit that accompanied the application the Applicant through Enoch
Pinto claim that the properties in dispute are all the properties of Plaintiff’s
church for which the Defendants are laying false claims to them. The deponent
further claim that Plaintiff would be inconvenienced if the Defendants were not
restrained from the use of the properties. He again depose that Plaintiff would
suffer irreparable loss if the Defendants are not restrained and they proceed
to dispose off the vehicle as the Defendants intend to do. Again the Applicant
claim in paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support that there would be confusion,
chaos and anarchy if Defendants are allowed to declare the church building as
belonging to the 2nd Defendant and plaintiff’s church members
prevented from worshipping there. And on that basis ask for the interlocutory
injunction.<o:p></o:p>There
was a supplementary affidavit filed which Plaintiff/Applicant attached previous
proceedings in respect of litigation over the properties which is also the
subject matter of this dispute and it included an earlier grant of an
interlocutory injunction by Ofori Atta J., the conviction for contempt of 1st
Respondent before Naa Adoley Azu J and also a dismissal of appeal against the
grant of an injunction by Ofori Atta by the Court of Appeal presided over by a
single Judge, Honyenuga JA.<o:p></o:p>Both
Defendants have fiercely resisted the application for interlocutory injunction
in separate affidavits in opposition filed describing the application as
frivolous. They claim that Applicant has established no right at law to be
entitled to the grant of the application as in their view no documentary
evidence has been put forward to demonstrate that the Applicant has any right
in the properties it seek for the interlocutory injunction. <o:p></o:p>They
further claim that the land upon which the building of the 2nd
Defendant church sits was bought for a valuable consideration by 1st
Defendant and attached Ex T.A.B 1 and T.A.B 2. Regarding the vehicle, the
Respondents contend that the vehicle was bought as far back as 2011 as all the
registration documents bear evidence that it is the property of 1st
Respondent. And the claim of fraud against them is nothing but a red herring. They
also claim that they would rather suffer greater hardship if the application
was granted by the court as they are already in possession and were they to
lose the suit, Plaintiff could adequately be compensated in damages.<o:p></o:p>As
a preliminary point I realise that counsel for Applicant has termed his
application as interim injunction as if interim is the same as interlocutory
injunction. Indeed many lawyers have laboured under this error. <o:p></o:p>N.
Y. B Adade, JSC in his article captioned “Interlocutory
Matters Under the High Court </main>