MADAM MARY ABBEY vs. ALHAJI YAKUBU & 3 ORS [2019]DLHC8925

Date	2019-04-04
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: FAL 374/14
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC8925

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE E. K. BOSOMPEM APENKWAH J.

GODSFORD SAWYERR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

NAA DJAMA AYIKOI OTOO FOR 1ST 3RD AND 4TH DEFENDANTS

FELIX QUARTEY FOR 2ND DEFENDANT

[2019]DLHC8925
																																						<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" >MADAM MARY ABBEY<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ALHAJI YAKUBU &amp; 3 ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPLICANT)<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.: FAL 374/14&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
4TH APRIL, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>GODSFORD SAWYERR
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p>NAA DJAMA AYIKOI OTOO FOR 1ST,
3RD AND 4TH DEFENDANTS <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">

FELIX
QUARTEY FOR 2ND DEFENDANT <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">

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 an order to amend the interlocutory injunction dated 10th
December, 2014.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants who moved the
motion contended that in an earlier application brought to this court after the
applicant herein had been injuncted the court graciously agreed to injunct all
parties in the action.&nbsp; This was on 10th
December, 2014.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He
continued and told this court that in preparing the order which she exhibited
as part of this application as exhibit AY 3, the Registrar made a mistake and
excluded the church building from the restraining order.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>She
further argued that the church is an agent of the Plaintiff/Respondent and
therefore the later order made to injunct the Plaintiff/Respondent should
affect all persons actually working on the land as agents of the
Plaintiff/Respondent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>She
also contended that the church and some mechanics who are on the land as agents
of the Plaintiff/Respondent should not be left out of the injunction order.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>For
this reason the order should be re-drawn up to include particularly the church
in the category of people who had been injuncted since they are agents of the Plaintiff
who had been restrained in the order sought to be amended.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>