BOAKYE DACOSTA vs. NANA ANING AGYEI & ANOR NANA OHENEBAH BEMPA, AKWASI AGYEI [2020]DLHC9168

Date	2020-02-06
Suit No.	SUIT NO. INTS 12/2016
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC9168

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE

JUDY EDUSEI FOR ASANTE KROBEA FOR THE CLAIMANT/APPLICANT

SHADRACK YEBOAH OBENG FOR THE PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT CREDITOR/RESPONDENT

[2020]DLHC9168
																																						<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" >BOAKYE DACOSTA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA ANING
AGYEI &amp; ANOR<o:p></o:p>NANA OHENEBAH
BEMPA<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>AKWASI AGYEI<o:p></o:p>(CLAIMANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), KUMASI]<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; INTS 12/2016&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
6TH FEBRUARY, 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JUDY
EDUSEI FOR ASANTE KROBEA FOR THE CLAIMANT/APPLICANT<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">

SHADRACK
YEBOAH OBENG FOR THE PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT CREDITOR/RESPONDENT<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 DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE, HIGH COURT JUDGE<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 ruling is in respect of an
application for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor/Respondent and the Deputy Sheriff, High Court
(Commercial Division), Kumasi from ejecting the occupants of property numbered
Plot 24 Block A, Abrepo-Tikese until the final determination of a pending
appeal.<o:p></o:p>The background to this application is
that on 20th April, 2015 the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor obtained judgment
against the Defendants/Judgment Debtors herein. Subsequently, the property
described as Plot 24, Block A, Abrepo-Tikese was attached in execution of the
judgment. The Claimant/Applicant (hereinafter called the Applicant) filed an
interpleader suit claiming that the said property belongs to him and his
siblings. On 28th February 2017, the court delivered judgment against the Applicant
herein by dismissing the application. Aggrieved by the decision of the court,
the Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal on 9th March 2017 and an application for
stay of execution on the same day. The application for stay of execution was
refused. On 29th August, 2019 the applicant herein filed the instant
application to restrain the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor/Respondent and the
Deputy Sheriff, High Court (Commercial Division), Kumasi from ejecting the
occupants of the aforesaid property.<o:p></o:p>The Applicant’s case is that it has a
legal right in the property in contention which ought to be protected by the
court. That, it will be inconvenient for the Applicant if the application is
refused and the occupants in the said house are evicted. It was asserted that
the Applicant will face greater hardship since the occupants would have to look
for alternative accommodation if the present application is refused. Counsel
for the applicant relied on cases including Quansah v Quansah [1984-86] 1GLR
718 and Vanderpuye v Nartey [1977] 1 GLR 428.<o:p></o:p>The Respondent is opposed to the
application and has demonstrated this in an affidavit in opposition filed on 5th
September, 2019. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that not only is the
application incompetent and unmeritorious but the same is brought in bad faith
to deny the purchaser of the property the right to exercise his ownership and
possessory rights over the property. Counsel argued that the Applicant has no
interest in the property and accordingly there is no right or interest that has
to be protected by the grant of this application. That the tenants who are in
occupation of the property rented their respective rooms from the
Defendant/Judgment debtor who was the owner of the house before same was sold
in satisfaction of the judgment in this case. <o:p></o:p>The grant of interlocutory injunction is
governed by Order 25 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C.I. 47.
Order 25 Rule 1 (1) provides as follows:<o:p></o:p>‘‘The
Court may grant an injunction by 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>The foremost consideration adopted by
the court in the grant of injunction is based on whether on the balance of
convenience the grant of the order would be just. As pointed out by the
authorities, </main>