EBUSUAPANYIN KWESI ANDZIE vrs EBUSUAPANYIN BINEY & 6 ORS
July 16, 2025
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE S. ROSETTA BERNASKO ESSAH (MRS.) J.A. (PRESIDING)
- JUSTICE JENNIFER A. DADZIE (MRS.) J.A
- JUSTICE OSEI-TUTU (MR.) J.A
July 16, 2025
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
This is an interlocutory appeal at the instance of the Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant against a ruling of the trial High
Court which granted an injunction in favour of the Defendant/Appellant/ Respondent. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
i. The Court erred in granting an order of Interlocutory Injunction in favour of the Defendants when they make no claim to title to any land.
ii. The order of Injunction has occasioned hardship and
miscarriage of justice to the Plaintiff. iii. The ruling is against the weight of affidavit evidence.
iv. Additional grounds may be filed.
No additional grounds were filed. In this delivery, the Appellant shall be referred to as the Plaintiff and the Respondent the Defendant.
The back ground facts to this appeal are that the Plaintiff on the 12th April, 2017, filed a Writ of Summons against the Defendants. By an amended Statement of Claim filed on the 13th of September, 2019, he sought the following reliefs against the Defendants jointly and severally:
a. Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land situate, being and lying at Ekumfi Adanseman and which shares boundary as follows:
i. On the North with property land of Kofi Atta of Adwenadze family of Adanse Kwaman and Twidan family of Addo
Egyir.
ii. On the East with property/land of Nana Ansah of Asaman.
iii. On the South East with the property/land of the Twidan family of Ekumfi Otuam.
iv. On the South with property/land of Kwa Duku; Kweku Akom and Kofi Andze Odoma family of Ekumfi Owuya land Nsona family of Ekumfi Owufa.
v. On the South West with the property/land of Twidan family of Emuna and nsona family of ebiram and vi. On the West with the property/land of Kobina Pabi of Adansi Kwanan.
b. Recovery of Possession.
c. General damages for trespass.
d. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants either by themselves their assigns, privies agents, workmen and all those claiming interest from or in trust for the defendants from entering onto and or interfering with plaintiff’s ownership, possession and occupation of the disputed land.
e. Costs including legal costs for prosecuting the suit.
On the same date of filing the suit which is on 12th April 2017, the Plaintiff filed a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction under Order 25 of CI 47. Same was subsequently amended on 10th November, 2019, when
AI Generated Summary
This appeal arises from a land dispute at Ekumfi Adanseman between a plaintiff asserting Twidan family ownership and multiple defendants claiming ancestral lands that share boundaries. The High Court granted the defendants’ interlocutory motion restraining the plaintiff and dismissed the plaintiff’s unmoved injunction application as void. On appeal, plaintiff argued defendants could not seek an injunction without a counterclaim and that both parties should have been restrained to preserve the status quo; he also advanced grounds of hardship and “against the weight of affidavit evidence.” The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of defendants’ injunction, emphasizing serious issues to be tried and irreparable harm risks, and noting plaintiff’s failure to oppose meant defendants’ allegations (including sand-winning and subsistence farming) were deemed admitted. It rejected the hardship and weight-of-evidence grounds. However, the court clarified that Order 19 rule 2(1) does not cause unmoved motions to lapse automatically and held the High Court erred in deeming plaintiff’s motion void, while declining to reinstate it because no relief was sought. The appeal succeeded in part; no costs were awarded.