DR. CADMAN MILLS v. NANA TANDOH & OTHERS
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- C. J. HONYENUGA, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- S. K. GYAN, J.A.
- G. S. SUURBAAREH, J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This legal case involved an appeal against an interlocutory injunction granted by the High Court, restraining both parties from developing a disputed 51.98-acre land. The trial court's decision aimed to maintain the status quo and protect the equitable rights of the plaintiff acting as an estate administrator. The defendants appealed, arguing the trial judge misapplied the principles for granting an injunction, improperly included non-parties, and did not adequately consider public interest. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision and reasoning that the injunction was appropriately granted based on the legal and equitable rights demonstrated by the plaintiff. The appellate court ordered an expedited trial to resolve the underlying land ownership issues.
HONYENUGA, J.A.
This is an appeal against the Ruling of the High Court, Cape Coast dated the 29th day of July 2014. The trial High court had granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the parties from further development on the land in dispute. The plaintiff/respondent would be referred to as the respondent and the defendants/appellants as the appellants.
By his amended writ of summons which was accompanied by a statement of claim, the respondent claimed as the administrator of the estate of the late John Evans Atta Mills (Snr) against the defendants jointly and severally for:-
“a. A declaration of title to the 51.98 acre of land at Essaman, near Elmina in the Komenda-Edina-Eguafo District and which land is more particularly described in the plan attached hereto.
b. An order of injunction restraining the defendants and each of them, whether by themselves, their agents, assigns, privies, servants etc however described from entering the 51.98 acres of land described in (a) above and/or having anything whatsoever to do with the said land.
c. An order setting any alienation of land made by the defendants to any person(s) of any portion of the 51.98 acres of land aforesaid.
d. Recovery of possession.
e. Damages for trespass.
f. An order of specific performance compelling the defendants to convey to the plaintiff the 51.98 acres of land at Essaman, aforesaid”.
The 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th appellants entered an appearance and filed a statement of defence. The 8th and 9th defendants were later joined to the suit.
However, the plaintiff filed a motion on notice for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants, their servants, agents, privies, assigns etc from entering any portion of the land in dispute. The motion was opposed by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th appellants. After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned trial judge on the 21st day of July granted an interlocutory injunction restraining both parties from any further development of the land in dispute pending the final determination of the suit. The plaintiff was ordered to file an Undertaking to pay damages and until he filed the undertaking, the injunction was not to take effect. The learned trial judge also directed the parties to file an Application for Directions for an expedited hearing – and further ordered that farm lands could still be cultivated.
Aggrieved by the Ruling of the High Court, the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th 8th and 9th appellants filed the inst