ADUMANA ROYAL STOOL v. MUNKAILA & 7 OTHERS
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- HONYENUGA, (J.A.)
- DENNIS D. ADJEI (J.A.)
- ACKAH-YENSU, (J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff claimed ownership of land in Bibiani Township, seeking various reliefs against the Defendants. The High Court granted a partial interlocutory injunction, which was appealed by the Defendants. The Court of Appeal upheld the Plaintiff’s capacity to sue, citing that a stool is a legal entity, but found that the trial court failed to properly consider the balance of hardship, thus setting aside the injunction.
DENNIS D. ADJEI (J.A.)
This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court Sefwi Wiawso delivered on 18th July, 2012.
The Plaintiff per its writ of summons is claiming against the defendant jointly and severally for:
i. A declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner of all that piece of land called Bibiani Township including its suburb Lineso in the Western Region of Republic of Ghana with common boundaries with Nkawie Stool, Adomakwaa Stool, Pataboso Stool, Anatanso Sorrow Extension Forest reserve which land covers the area called Lineso – Bibiani beyond, the subject matter and land in dispute.
ii. Recovery of possession of all pockets of land in the area in possession of Defendants its assigns, agent and all claiming through them.
iii. Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from dealing and/or interfering with the described land of the Plaintiff Stool until the final determination of the suit
iv. General damages for trespass.
v. Any order(s) as the Court may deem fit”.
The Plaintiff/Respondent applied for an order for Interlocutory injunction to restraint he Defendants/Appellants, their agents, servants and any person claiming title through them from interfering with the Plaintiff’s property in dispute. The application was resisted by the defendants but the Court in its ruling granted the application in part. The defendants aggrieved by the ruling of the trial High Court filed an interlocutory appeal against same.
The grounds of appeal filed by the defendants are as follows:
(a) The decision/ruling delivered by the Court was against the weight of affidavit evidence adduced in Court by the parties.
(b) That the learned judge erred in law when granted the plaintiff’s application having regard to the fact that, the plaintiff has no capacity to initiate the present action let alone applying for an order of interim injunction.
(c) Having failed to prove his case; as required by law, the learned judge ought to have dismissed the plaintiff’s application.
(d) The learned judge did not exercise his discretion fairly and judicially.
(e) The learned judge failed to consider adequately the principle governing the grant of an order of interim injunction”.
The defendants numbered the sentence which is to the effect that they may file additional grounds of appeal on receipt of the record of appeal as ground (f) of the appeal. It is not a ground of appeal and should not be described as such. A ground of appeal should be a ground which may determ