NII AMARKAI III AND 4 OTHERS vs. NII OYENINNA TEIKO TAGOE ASAFOATSE ADAMA [2018]DLHC3850

Date	2018-01-26
Suit No.	SUIT NO: GJ1764/2017
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3850

ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

AMY JEAN MARKIN BEING LED BY GEORGE ESHUN ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFFS

THERESA ABENA BOADU FOR RESPONDENTS

[2018]DLHC3850
																																						<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" >NII AMARKAI III AND 4
OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;vs.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>NII OYENINNA TEIKO TAGOE
ASAFOATSE ADAMA<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (GENERAL
JURISDICTION 7), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>SUIT NO: GJ1764/2017&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;26TH JANUARY, 2018<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AMY JEAN MARKIN BEING LED BY GEORGE ESHUN ESQ., FOR PLAINTIFFS <o:p></o:p>THERESA ABENA BOADU FOR RESPONDENTS <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>RULING<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

</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><o:p>&nbsp;</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. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>And therefore the claim of 1st Plaintiff acting cannot
be correct. Order 25 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C. I. 47
states as follows: “The court may grant
an injunction by an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the
court to 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>