THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH – GHANA vs. MAWUNYO ADDREY [2019]DLHC9158

Date	2019-10-31
Suit No.	SUIT NO. LD/0854/19
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC9158

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE BARBARA TETTEH-CHARWAY (MRS)

MICHAEL YOURI FOR PLAINTIFF

NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR DEFENDANT

[2019]DLHC9158
																																						<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" >THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH –
GHANA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MAWUNYO ADDREY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (LAND DIVISION), 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. LD/0854/19&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:
31ST OCTOBER, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MICHAEL
YOURI FOR PLAINTIFF&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; <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">

NO
LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR 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">

</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>Before me is an application for
interlocutory injunction filed by the Plaintiff/Applicant. The Plaintiff’s case
as gleaned from his pleading and affidavit in support of the instant
application is that it acquired the land in dispute by an assignment dated 10th
September 2016 from Overtaken Company Ltd. &nbsp;According to the Plaintiff, its vendor
obtained its grant from the Odoi Kesse family of Obosomase-Akuapem. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Plaintiff further claims that after it
had acquired the land in dispute, it permitted the Defendant to operate his
fitting shop on a section of the land with the understanding, that he could not
put up any structures on the land and would surrender same to Plaintiff on
request. &nbsp;Plaintiff claims Defendant has
breached this agreement by developing the land in spite of warnings issued by
the Plaintiff. &nbsp;Plaintiff therefore seeks
the intervention of this Court to recover its land from the Defendant and for
declaration of title therein.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his statement of defence and
affidavit in opposition to the motion for injunction, the Defendant denies the Plaintiffs
claim. &nbsp;He contends that he is not a
licensee of the Plaintiff. According to the Defendant, he first acquired the
land in dispute from the Naanomo family of Dodowa but re-purchased it from the
Odoi Kesse family of Obosomase in 2006 when it came to light that they were the
rightful owners of the said land. &nbsp;He
claims that Plaintiff’s land does not extend to the plot on which he is putting
up his structure. &nbsp;Defendant further
claims that Plaintiff’s vendor lost a suit against its grantor, the Odoi Kesse
Family, in respect of a wider parcel of land that includes the land in dispute
– a judgment, which has not been set aside. The Defendant therefore claims that
Plaintiff’s vendor had no capacity to alienate Plaintiff’s land to it. The Defendant
also maintained that the Plaintiff’s action was motivated by a desire to annex
his land because it was located at the frontage of the road.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>To his affidavit in support of the motion
for injunction, the Plaintiff attached its deed of assignment dated 10th
September 2016 by which it acquired the land in dispute from Overtaken Company Ltd.
&nbsp;It also attached photographs showing a
heap of stones deposited on a section of the land, as well as, photographs of a
section of the land covered by a dwarf wall.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Defendant, on the other hand,
attached to his affidavit in opposition a lease dated 2nd August
2006 obtained from the Odoi Kesse Family of Obosomase, a receipt showing
purchase of one plot of land at Dodowa from Addrey Mawunyo and a default
judgment entered against Overtaken Company Ltd, Plaintiff’s vendor, in favour
of Henry Sakyi Obiri suing as lawful representative of Abusua Panyin Attah
Panyin Stool of Odoi Kesse family of Obosomase. The said judgment was final in
its determination of the rights between the two (2) parties although it was a
default judgment.<o:p></o:p>