2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Ghana Court of Appeal, per Georgina Mensah-Datsa JA, with Irene Charity Larbi JA (Presiding) and Yaw Darko Asare JA concurring, dismissed Court 1 Law Consult’s appeal from a High Court judgment in favour of a neighboring church and municipal officials. The Appellant had sought injunctions and production of permits to restrain church construction adjacent to its law center, alleging lack of permits and zoning violations. On appeal, the Court first struck out grounds ii–xi as argumentative under Rule 8(5) of C.I. 19, and addressed the omnibus claim that the judgment was against the weight of evidence. Treating capacity as a threshold issue, the Court held that the Appellant had not shown it was a legal person or partnership at the time of issuance of the writ, nor that it had renewed its business name under Act 151. The building permit evidence was in the Senior Managing Partner’s name for a residential facility. Declining to amend capacity sua motu, the Court found no cause of action and affirmed the High Court’s dismissal, with costs against the Appellant.
GEORGINA MENSAH-DATSA (MRS.), JA
This is an appeal by the Plaintiff/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as Appellant) against the Judgment of the High Court, Cape Coast dated 24th January, 2019 in favour of the Defendants/Respondents (hereinafter referred to as Respondents).
The grounds of appeal are as follows:
i. The Judgment is against the weight of affidavit evidence adduced before the Court.
ii. The learned High Court Judge erred in law when she failed to amend the title of the suit to reflect the amendment granted by the High Court, Cape Coast, on the 14th of January, 2019, especially when Plaintiff had drew (sic) the Court’s attention to the Order for Amendment before reading the judgment.
iii. That the learned High Court Judge misdirected herself when she stated that Plaintiff lacks capacity to mount the action when indeed it is registered under the laws of Ghana and can sue and be sued and the Chambers is in Good Standing as at 2018 with Chambers registration number…..as sanctioned by the General Legal Council.
iv. The learned High Court Judge also erred in law when it held that Plaintiff had not renewed its registration of Business Name when indeed, the law firm had renewed its license and is also in good standing at the Registrar-General’s Department per receipt number 201805090528861 dated the 9th of May, 2018.
v. That, the trial Judge erred in law when she stated that it is not the Court that is to restrain the 1st Defendant from building on the area not zoned for the purpose when indeed evidence abound of the Planning Authorities putting up notices to stop the illegal development but to no avail and the Plaintiff undertaking his Constitutional obligation Article 41 (b) of the 1992 Republican Constitution which mandates every citizen to uphold and defend the Constitution and the law.
vi. The trial High Court Judge erred in law when she stated that Plaintiff had not renewed his registration documents which is not true, but filed the 2015 one when the Court ordered that the parties file their respective documents after its Ruling on 30th day of July, 2015, so could not file the subsequent ones each year that the trial was ongoing.
vii. The Court also erred in law when it held that Plaintiff did not bring any witness from the Regulatory bodies to testify when indeed the Municipal Engineer and the Building Inspector were all sued and they stated in their Defence in Paragraph 9 that since 1st and 2nd Defendants (before 2019 amendment) do no