NII ADJABENG ANKRAH II vs. ADOLF ANKRAH & ORS [2019]DLHC8903

Date	2019-11-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. LD/0910/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC8903

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE E. K. BOSOMPEM APENKWAH J.

G. N. K. PHIXON OWOO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

S. K. AMOAH FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

[2019]DLHC8903
																																						<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 ADJABENG ANKRAH II<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ADOLF ANKRAH &amp; ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (LAND DIVISION 5), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO.&nbsp; LD/0910/2018&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
28TH NOVEMBER, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>G. N. K. PHIXON OWOO FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

S.
K. AMOAH FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT <o:p></o:p>

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

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE E. K. BOSOMPEM APENKWAH J.<o:p></o:p>

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This is an application for
interlocutory injunction. This court will rely on Order 25 rule 1(6) to make a determination
by looking only at the papers filed and where necessary address by counsel on specific
point of law and/or facts. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel for Defendants/Applicants has
drawn my attention to the point of law that, the Plaintiff/Respondent has
averred that he is a chief. Counsel draws the court’s attention that it has no jurisdiction
to pronounce on a chieftaincy matter. With this the stage is set for a determination
of the application for interlocutory injunction.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The principles governing the grant or
refusal of this equitable relief are well-settled. It must also be added that an
applicant must identify the land for which he seeks this relief. In the instant
case the applicants have not identified the specific land on which they seek to
injunct the Plaintiff/Respondent. See the case of Nyipklorpkor vrs. Agbodotor
(1984-89) GLR. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Again, granted it is a land located in
the premises where the Respondent lives I will still refuse to grant the
application since he is in possession of the property and the <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>grant will cause hardship to him as compared
to the Applicants who have nothing to lose if the application is refused. &nbsp;See the case of 1st July Ltd
vrs. Yehans International Ghana Ltd 2003-2004 SCGLR where the Supreme Court
&nbsp;&nbsp;per Anin Yeboah held that an application for
interlocutory injunction should be refused if its grant will cause greater
hardship to the Respondent. Application is therefore refused. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>No order as to costs. Suit is adjourned
to 10th December, 2019 for c.m.c. at midday. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

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