PROSPER AWUTEY vs. STEPHEN FOLIVI & 2 ORS [2019]DLHC10324

Date	2019-07-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO. LD/0895/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10324

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).

DOE AGBENU COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF ABSENT

GEORGE ESHUN COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS ABSENT

[2019]DLHC10324
																																						<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" >PROSPER
AWUTEY<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>STEPHEN FOLIVI &amp; 2 ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<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>DOE AGBENU,
COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF ABSENT<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;">

GEORGE
ESHUN, COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS ABSENT<o:p></o:p>

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

</div>&nbsp;MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER OF
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION<o:p></o:p>RULING<o:p></o:p>This application is brought under Order
25 of the High Court Civil Procedure rules C.I. 47 and it is a request by the plaintiff/applicant
hereinafter called the plaintiff for an order of Interlocutory Injunction
against the defendants/respondents hereinafter called the defendants to
restrain them and their agents, assigns, personal representatives, hirelings
etc. from trespassing on, demolishing, or in any way interfering or dealing in
any manner with the land which is the subject matter of this suit pending the
final determination of the substantive suit.<o:p></o:p>The reasons for the plaintiff’s request
are that he acquired the land in question in the year 2006 and has since then
been in possession of same and has also been living on the said land with his
family for more than five (5) years now until the defendants herein trespassed
unto the said land which is said to be situate at Abehenease near Amasaman
Accra and covers an approximate area of 0.08 acre or (0.03 hectares) more or less.<o:p></o:p>It is the case of the plaintiff that
the first defendant claims to have bought the plaintiff’s land together with
the buildings thereon from the second defendant and that the first defendant is
seeking to have the plaintiff ejected from the said land with the support and
connivance of the second and third defendants and that the third defendant in
particular had threatened to demolish and had indeed demolished a part of his
building all with the sole aim of depriving the plaintiff of his land hence the
plaintiff’s resort to this Court for redress.<o:p></o:p>The defendants (the first and second)
in their affidavit in opposition to the application, denied the claims of the
plaintiff. They claimed that the plaintiff had built his single room house on
the access road leading to the house of the first defendant despite warnings to
the plaintiff to refrain from doing so.<o:p></o:p>The first defendant said he reported
the conduct of the plaintiff to the 3rd defendant which is the
Municipal Assembly in charge of the area and further that he offered the
plaintiff an alternative piece of land at the bidding of the plaintiff and even
went on to build a room on the alternative land but the plaintiff had refused
to move from his present location, which the first and second defendants describe
as ‘a proposed road,’ to the new land which had been acquired for him. The
first and second defendants went on to state that where the plaintiff currently
occupies is not land that is approved for the construction of dwelling houses
but is rather an access route for neighbouring occupants of land within that vicinity.<o:p></o:p>The first and second defendants
therefore requested the Court to refuse the application since the plaintiff
will not suffer any irreparable loss or damage if his dwelling is demolished
since same is situated on a ‘proposed road’.<o:p></o:p>The record shows that though the third
defendant was served with the Writ and Statement of Claim and also the
application for interlocutory injunction, it did not bother to file a response
to the application for interlocutory injunction.<o:p></o:p>Now Order 25 rule 1 of C.I. 47 states “The
Court may grant 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>