DJAGBLETE AMON vs. LANCE CORPORAL AIKINS AFREKO [2019]DLHC10206

Date	2019-11-11
Suit No.	SUIT NO. LD/1071/2019B
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10206

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS.)

MR. CHRIS AZUMAH COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT PRESENT

MR. ALHASSAN DRAMANI HOLDING BRIEF FOR SAMUEL ATUKWEI QUAYE

COUNSEL THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT PRESENT

[2019]DLHC10206
																																						<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" >DJAGBLETE AMON<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>LANCE CORPORAL AIKINS AFREKO<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT
NO. LD/1071/2019B&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 11TH
NOVEMEBR, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. CHRIS AZUMAH, COUNSEL FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT PRESENT<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">MR. ALHASSAN DRAMANI HOLDING
BRIEF FOR SAMUEL ATUKWEI QUAYE, COUNSEL THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS.)<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;RULING ON MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This present application is brought by
the plaintiff/applicant under order 25 rule 1 (1) of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 2004, and it is a request for an order of interlocutory
injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, assigns, privies and workmen
etc. from entering unto the land the subject matter of this suit and
interfering in any way whatsoever with the land pending the final determination
of substantive suit.<o:p></o:p>The case of the applicant is that the
land in question which is said to be situate at Ofankor was acquired by his
late father one Tettey Quarshie in the year 1993 and that recently he and his
family realised that someone had trespassed unto the land.&nbsp; He says his investigations revealed that it
was the defendant who had started
development on the land and he therefore reported the matter to the
Police at Pokuase Police Station and both parties i.e. the plaintiff and the
defendant were invited by the police and they were both warned to desist from
any further developments till the issue had been resolved. <o:p></o:p>The plaintiff claims that despite this
admonition by the police, the defendant who is himself a policeman has
persisted in his development of the land.&nbsp;
The plaintiff thinks that if the defendant is not restrained by the
Court, he will cause extensive damage to the disputed land, hence this
application for an order of interlocutory injunction.<o:p></o:p>The defendant was not in Court when the
application was moved, but in an affidavit in opposition filed on 28th
of August, 2019, he opposed the application and stated that the land in
question was acquired in the year 2011 by his uncle whose name he gave as Abubakar
Abdulai from a family in Ofankor by name Awulemona and that his uncle gave him
the land and he also began the construction of a three bedroom house on the
land which said construction has reached the lintel level. The defendant said
no useful purpose will be achieved by the grant of an interlocutory injunction
since the plaintiff had sat by and watched on as he the (defendant) developed
the land since the year 2015.<o:p></o:p>Now order 25 rule 1 (1) of High Court
rules, supra, makes it clear that the grant of an order of interlocutory
injunction is a discretionary remedy which may be made by the Court either
unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions as the Court may consider just.<o:p></o:p>It has
also been stated times without number and in a plethora of decided cases that
the requirements for the grant of an interlocutory injunction are that the
applicant must establish that there is a serious question to be tried as
between the parties, that the applicant would suffer irreparable damage which
cannot be remedied by the award of damages and also that the balance of convenience
is in favour of granting the applicant the interlocutory injunction. (See the
case of Welford Quarcoo V. Attorney-General &amp; Another [2012] 1SCGLR P.259 per
Dr. Date-Bah JSC).<o:p></o:p>The Court
has considered the oral submissions of counsel for the applicant and has also
adverted its mind to the affidavits of both parties and also their statements
of case and all their annexures. The Court is of the opinion that the present
application should not be granted because it would rather work more hardship on
the defendant/respondent who has built a 3 bedroom dwelling on the land up to
the lintel level, taking into consideration the state of our country’s economy
where prices of building materials keep going up day in and day out. If the
defendant’s project is stalled for the years that the substantive litigation
may run, the defendant would need more money in order to complete his project
if at the end of the day, it turns out that he is entitled to the land in
dispute. On the other hand if the plaintiff is adjudged the winner of the
substantive suit he can be adequately compensated in the award of damages for the
actions of the defendant.&nbsp; Indeed it is this
Court’s opinion that no useful purpose would be served by the grant of this
application considering the fact that the plaintiff, who claims the land was
acquired by his late father in 1993, had done nothing either by himself or in
concert with his family to protect the said land since the demise of his
father.<o:p></o:p>In the
light of the above reasoning, the application for the grant of an order of
interlocutory injunction against the defendant/respondent is refused. There is
no award of cost against the plaintiff/applicant.<o:p></o:p>