OSAMANPA ESTATES LTD. vs. RONALD ANGELO ADUKERE & 2 ORS. [2019]DLHC10319

Date	2019-12-05
Suit No.	SUIT NO.LD/0922/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10319

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).

PLAINTIFF REPRESENTED BY LENUS ADDO

1ST AND 3RD DEFENDANTS ABSENT BUT REPRESENTED BY ADOLF OKOE 2ND DEFENDANT PRESENT

MR. PHILIP ANDERSON COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF PRESENT

EDDIE MCCARTHY HOLDING BRIEF FOR RICHMOND NUMBO SAAKA COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS PRESENT

[2019]DLHC10319
																																						<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" >OSAMANPA ESTATES LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>RONALD ANGELO ADUKERE &amp; 2 ORS.<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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;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/0922/2019&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: 5TH DECEMBER 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>PLAINTIFF REPRESENTED
BY LENUS ADDO<o:p></o:p>1ST AND
3RD DEFENDANTS ABSENT BUT REPRESENTED BY ADOLF OKOE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;2ND DEFENDANT PRESENT<o:p></o:p>MR. PHILIP
ANDERSON, COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF 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;">

EDDIE
MCCARTHY HOLDING BRIEF FOR RICHMOND NUMBO SAAKA, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

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

</div>Ruling on Motion on Notice for
Interlocutory Injunction<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff/applicant in this
application is requesting the Court for an order restraining the
Defendants/Respondents their agents, workmen and assigns etc. from dealing with
the land which is the subject matter of the substantive suit pending the final
determination of the said suit.<o:p></o:p>In an amended writ and statement of claim
dated the 15th day of July, 2019 the plaintiff claims against the
defendants, among other reliefs, a declaration of title to a piece of land
situate at Nmai Dzorn Accra and also for an order for recovery of possession.<o:p></o:p>The reason for the plaintiff’s request
for an order of interlocutory injunction is that it is the owner of that parcel
of land which is the subject matter of the substantive suit and that it
acquired same in the year 2005 and further that the defendants had entered the
said land and demolished all structures that the plaintiff had erected on the
land with the active support of personnel from the Ghana Police Service.&nbsp; The plaintiff moreover claimed that the
defendants had begun erecting their own fence walls on the land and are bent on
changing the whole character of the land in dispute.<o:p></o:p>The defendants have opposed this
application. The 1st defendant claims in his affidavit that he
legally acquired the land in February, 2005 from the same Okpelor Sowah Din
family of Teshie and Nmai Dzorn which the plaintiff claims to be its
grantors.&nbsp; The 1st defendant claims
he has been in undisputed possession of the land since the time he acquired
same.<o:p></o:p>Now it is trite to say that the grant
of an order of interlocutory injunction is a discretionary one as clearly
stated in Order 25 rule 1 (1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004
CI 47. Case law has also made it abundantly clear that a Court, in making an
order of interlocutory injunction, needs to be guided by certain principles
among which are that the applicant must establish a legal or equitable right to
the subject matter which has to be protected by the Court by maintaining the
status quo pending the determination of the substantive action on its merits
and also that the grant of the interlocutory order will not occasion great
hardship and/or inconvenience to the other party.&nbsp; See cases like 18th July Ltd. vs Yehans and Owusu vs Owusu-Ansah and Anor. [2007-2008]
2 SCGLR 870.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>This Court has considered all the
affidavit evidence of both parties and the exhibits attached to their
affidavits plus their statements of case and the Court is of the opinion that
the application of the plaintiff is to be granted so as to maintain the status
quo pending the final determination of the substantive matter on its
merits because the Court believes that there are triable issues like who has or
had the capacity to grant the land in dispute to the parties herein since both
are claiming they had their grants from the same Okpelor Sowah Din Family of
Teshie and Nmai Dzorn. The plaintiff/applicant is however to file an
undertaking in this Court’s registry to compensate the defendants/respondents
in the sum of GH₵100,000.00 if it turns out in the end that
it was not entitled to the grant of this order of interlocutory injunction.<o:p></o:p>