2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around a land dispute between the Plaintiff/Respondent, representing the Asona family of Krapa No.2, and the Defendant/Appellant, the chief of Krapa No.1. Both parties claimed ownership of the land, leading to a legal conflict initiated by the Plaintiff in June 2014, with subsequent interlocutory injunctions filed by both parties. The Plaintiff's injunction was initially granted, while the Defendant's request for an injunction was denied. The Defendant appealed this refusal. The appellate court reviewed the case, emphasizing the importance of maintaining status quo in interlocutory applications and the proper exercise of judicial discretion. The court concluded that the trial court had failed to exercise its discretion correctly, and hence granted the Defendant's injunction except in relation to family dealings with the land.
TORKORNOO (MRS) , J. A:
The central contention in this suit is that the Plaintiff/Respondent, who sues as the head of family of Asona family of Krapa No 2 lays claim to the land in dispute as his family land.
The Defendant Appellant who is the chief of Krapa No 1 lays claim to the disputed land as stool land forming part of Krapa No 1 lands.
The Respondent sued the Appellant for the following reliefs in June 2014:
CLAIMS
a. A declaration of title to all that parcel of land situate and lying at Twerebo on Krapa No.2 Stool Lands and sharing boundaries with Krapa No.1, Opanin Minka’s family, Maame Abena Afrah of Krapa No.1, Maame Adwoa Ataa (Bretuo family of Krapa No.2) and the Kankanan stream is their family land.
b. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his assigns, privies, workmen, successors in title him from interfering with the Plaintiff’s family enjoyment of the portion of land the subject matter of the instant action.
c. Recovery of possession.
d. General damages for trespass.
e. Costs.
The Appellants responded with a defence which denied the Plaintiff’s claims and counterclaimed for:
1. A declaration that all that parcel of land known and called as “TWEREBO” and sharing boundaries with Krapa No.2 lands with an old Adagya footpath, a number of “Ntomeh” trees up to the Kuntanan Stream us boundary features forms part of Krapa No.1 stool lands and as such is the property of the Krapa No.1 Stool.
2. Damages for trespass and an order for recovery of possession.
3. An order for Perpetual Injunction restraining the Plaintiff and family members, his assigns and all who claim through him from interfering with the Defendants (i.e. the Krapa No.1) stool’s enjoyment of the disputed property.
4. Any further orders or reliefs.
On the very day that he issued the writ, the Respondent applied for an interlocutory injunction order restraining the Appellant or his agents assigns and representatives from ‘alienating, developing, or dealing with any portion of the disputed land until the final determination of the suit.’ The order was granted on 30th July 2014.
The reasoning of the court in granting the order for injunction is that ‘the defendant does not dispute the fact that the Plaintiff and his family are in possession of the land’ and are admittedly holding a license to the said land.
It was the judge’s evaluation that since the Appellant accepted that the license is not revoked, the Respondent’s possession could remain undisturbed unt