NII ADJEI KPOBI ASAAWA & ORS. vs. CLEMENT MENSAH ANANG & ANOR. [2019]DLHC10312

Date	2019-07-22
Suit No.	SUIT NO. LD/0472/18
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10312

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS)

PROSPER ANNAN AMARTEY 1ST DEFENDANT’S LAWFUL ATTORNEY PRESENT

ANASTASIA HAMMOND HOLDING BRIEF FOR RICHARD BOBBISON JNR. COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS PRESENT

MR KWAME NKRUMAH BOTSIO COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS PRESENT

[2019]DLHC10312
																																						<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
ADJEI KPOBI ASAAWA &amp; ORS.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CLEMENT
MENSAH ANANG &amp; ANOR.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<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;">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>PROSPER ANNAN
AMARTEY, 1ST DEFENDANT’S LAWFUL ATTORNEY PRESENT<o:p></o:p>ANASTASIA HAMMOND
HOLDING BRIEF FOR RICHARD BOBBISON JNR., COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS
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;">

MR
KWAME NKRUMAH BOTSIO, COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<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;">

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS
(MRS)<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">MOTION ON NOTICE FOR
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">RULING<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The plaintiffs/applicants request
this Court for an Order of interlocutory injunction against the defendants/respondents,
restraining them from developing and/or interfering with the parcel of land
which is the subject of the substantive suit. The reasons of the
plaintiffs/applicants for this request is that the first defendant/respondent’s
family (the Nii Kweiman Family of Kweiman) is a customary licensee of the
plaintiffs’ families and has registered portions of the land in their family
name without the consent of the plaintiffs’ families and also that the 2nd
defendant/respondent, an estate developer, is fast developing the land in
dispute in a bid to change the character of the land.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The plaintiffs say that the Nii
Kweitia family of Kweiman could not have granted portions of the disputed land
to the 2nd defendant/respondent because the said family does not own
the land and therefore it could not give or grant what it does not own to the
second defendant/respondents.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The defendants/respondents have
opposed the application on the grounds that the dimensions and description of
the land being claimed by the plaintiffs is inaccurate, that the land the
plaintiffs are claiming does not belong to the plaintiffs and also that the
defendants/respondents are not carrying out any construction or development on
any land that is owned by the plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The Court has considered the
affidavit evidence of both sides and has perused all their attached exhibits
and has also considered the submissions of both Counsel and the Court is of the
opinion that this application should not be granted because the Court is in
doubt about the exact size and location of the land that is being claimed by
the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs say their land is situate at Oyarifa and that
its size is approximately 111.74 acres or 45.29 hectares.&nbsp; The defendants on the other hand say that
their land is situate at Kweiman with an approximate size of 176.145 hectares
or 435.264 acres. This is evidenced by Exhibit ‘PAA1’ which is a land
certificate with number GA 22409 issued by the land title registry on 5th
May, 2006.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">This Court is of the opinion that
it is only when evidence is adduced at trial that it will be in a position to
determine the exact location, size and ownership of the land in
contention.&nbsp; This Court is also of the opinion
that a grant of interlocutory injunction will rather work more hardship on the
defendants who appear to be in possession of the land and who appear to have
documentation on the said land and are also developing the land into estates. In
the event that the plaintiffs are adjudged to be owners of the land in dispute,
this Court believes that compensation in monetary terms will be adequate for
the plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">In the light of the foregoing
reasons the application for interlocutory injunction is refused. There is no
award of cost against th</main>