DAYSHINE COMPANY LIMITED and ANOR v. THE ODOI KESE FAMILY

AGYEMANG (MRS.) J.A.:

In this interlocutory appeal against the ruling of the High Court Koforidua, delivered on 27th day of July 2018, the defendants/respondents/appellants (hereafter referred to as the defendants), seek the setting aside of the ruling granting the injunction at the court below.

The matters antecedent to the bringing of the instant appeal, are the following: The plaintiffs/applicants/respondents (hereafter described as the plaintiffs), commenced suit at the court below for the following reliefs:

1. A declaration of title to all that parcel of land known as Odoi Kese land which measures an approximate area of 45,488,502 acres situate and being at Obosomase, the Akuapem area, Dodowa and extending areas near Afienya, bounded on the North and North-West by Tutu and Obosomase, Ahewrease and Aburi Townships, in the South-West by Otinibi and Amrahia lands, on the South by Kobekro and Mataheko, on the South-east by Ablekuma, Adwenafor and Afienya lands, on the East by Kyebekyerete, Okutolege and Techiekissekope lands, on the North-East by Naglayo lands, PWD Staff Quarters and Mampong lands, on the North by Doryumu l;ands, Asaba (Asebi) Donoitsekope, Blako-Pukpe, Adumanya Odumase and Kwasidae lands;

2. Recovery of possession

3. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from holding itself out as owning the plaintiff’s land;

4. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its agents, assigns, privies, or workers form entering upon the plaintiffs land

5. Costs… The plaintiff described itself as the land-owning family that was suing per its head of family.

Some two weeks after the commencement of the action, the present second defendant, claiming to be the head of the wider Kyenku family of Obosomase of which the plaintiff’s Odoi Kese family was allegedly a part, being the grantor of the defendant, applied to be joined to the suit to answer to the claim of the plaintiff.

Following the joinder, the plaintiff, by an amended statement of claim, alleged that in or about early 2018, the defendant - now first defendant (which it described as a stranger and an unknown entity holding itself out as a company), allegedly forcibly entered the plaintiff’s land and caused on-going irreparable damage to the plaintiff’s land, as well as nuisance.

The plaintiff alleged further that the first defendant, without reference to the plaintiff the land owner, cleared the vegetation on the plaintiff’s land, excavated the top soil, allegedly causing irr