NII AMARKAI III AND OTHERS vs. NII OYENINNA TEIKO TAGOE [2018]DLHC3492

Date	2018-01-26
Suit No.	SUIT NO.GJ/1764/17
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3492

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

GEORGE ESHUN FOR APPLICANTS PRESENT

[2018]DLHC3492
																																						<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">NII
AMARKAI III AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>NII OYENINNA TEIKO TAGOE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION 7), 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/1764/17&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;DATE: 26TH JANUARY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

GEORGE
ESHUN FOR APPLICANTS PRESENT<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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>In
suit No: GJ 597/2017 between Daniel Ashie Kotei &amp; Anor v Nii Amarkai III,
the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, where the Plaintiffs in that suit sought for an
order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st Plaintiff
herein and his assigns from trespassing or interfering with the Asere Mantse’s
palace at Anunsah Clottey Street Kaneshie as the Asere Mantse’s official
residence, I refused that prayer in my ruling as the allegation of renovation
works that was being undertaken could not in any way constitute an alienation
or sale of the property as Daniel Ashie Kotei had alleged.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
this application the Plaintiff prays for an order of interlocutory injunction,
which had earlier been refused against him, to be granted to restrain the
Defendants from disturbing his quiet enjoyment of the palace until the final
determination of the suit. <o:p></o:p>In
an affidavit deposed to in support of the application by the Plaintiff he
styles himself as the Dzasetse of Asere and the acting Asere Mantse and the
lawful representative of the Asere stool. That the other Plaintiffs are
principal Elders of Asere by virtue of their headship over Frimpongwe,
Amartsewe, Anunsa and Asere Tsorno. Plaintiff depose that 1st
Respondent being the head of Agbonwe and with 2nd Defendant as the
Asafoatse within Asere the Defendants having been laying claim to the ownership
of the land with a building thereon at Anunsa Clottey, Kaneshie, the Asere stool
palace, which is the property of the Asere Stool. To Plaintiff the Defendants
have been disturbing the quiet enjoyment of the palace and threatening the
lives of the Plaintiffs and other users of the palace. To Plaintiff even though
the Ga Traditional Council restrained the Defendants, yet they have ignored the
restraining order made by the Ga Traditional Council. And hence his prayer that
the Defendants be restrained from disturbing his quiet enjoyment of the palace.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Defendants have opposed the application for interlocutory injunction. In an
affidavit in opposition deposed to by the 1st Defendant he claim
that the property is the Asere Mantse’s palace and it is for Asere Stool and
therefore all Elders of Asere and people of Asere have the right to enter the
palace. And that they have not in any way disturbed the quiet enjoyment of any
body. Defendant further depose that by custom the 1st plaintiff only
acts as Asere Mantse but with the appointment of a substantive one the 1st
Plaintiff seized to act as Asere Mantse. And therefore the claim of 1st
Plaintiff acting cannot be correct.<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>“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>In an application for
interlocutory injunction it is the duty of the applicant to demonstrate among
other factors that there is a right that ought to be protected at law or in
equity and that the application is not frivolous or vexatious, that if the
application were denied by the court irreparable damage would be caused to the
applicant, that there was the need to hold the balance evenly between the
parties pending the final determination of the suit and finally that
compensation would be inadequate remedy. See the following cases: OWUSU v OWUSU ANSAH [2007-2008] SCGLR
870 at 875, VANDERPUYE v NARTEY
[1977] 1 GLR 428; EKWAM v PIANIM
[1996-97] SCGLR 117.<o:p></o:p>From the Plaintiffs’ writ
and the application I glean that they concede that the Defendants belonging to
Agbonwe faction and being the Asafoatse of Asere respectively all have a right
to the use of the Asere palace at Anunsa. As after all the parties hail from
Asere. The palace not being the personal property of the applicants, the
question is can Applicants have access, use and enjoyment of the palace to the
exclusion of the other families within Asere such as to make the court restrain
the Defendants in order to make Applicants ha</main>