Try asking the following...
RULING
Plaintiff/Applicant herein filed this Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction on
the 3rd of March, 2023 praying for an Order to restrain the Defendant from
interfering with the Plaintiff’s parcel of land by way of demolishing Plaintiff’s
building on the disputed land.
In an Affidavit in Support deposed to by Francis Ankomah Sey on behalf of Plaintiff,
it is averred that Plaintiff bought a parcel of land from Chief of Santeo and exhibit an
Indenture as Exhibit A. Plaintiff further contends that the Defendant herein TDC is
challenging the title of the Plaintiff, claiming the land belongs to TDC.
Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Affidavit in Support state:
Paragraph 9
It is contended that under the existing law the power of TDC over land in
Tema ended in 1969 with the promulgation of NLCD 355 which limited the
boundaries of TDC.
Paragraph 10
That it is prayed that pending the determination of those issues in
controversy the Defendant should be restrained from sending bulldozers to
enter the land to forcibly take over the land.
In a Supplementary Affidavit filed on his behalf, Plaintiff/Applicant is contending
that TDC is relying on a Judgment at the High Court in which Plaintiff/Applicant
lost and there is an Appeal pending. Plaintiff/Applicant again contends that she
concedes that the Tema Port Acquisition Ordinance covered 63 square miles which
Plaintiff’s land falls within but that law was repealed in 1969 per NLCD355.
In opposing this Application, Defendant/Respondent contends that the Judgment referred
to by Plaintiff/Applicant i.e Nii Blabetey Borketey Nkpa vrs. Tema Development
Corporation (Exhibit NAA02), the Court stated clearly that Plaintiff’s Grantor do not
own any land in Santeo area.
Also the land which is the subject matter of the dispute falls within the Tema
Acquisition Area and it is only the Defendant/Respondent that can alienate same.
The Principle governing the grant or otherwise is laid down in the case of 18th July
Limited vrs Yehans International Limited (2012) 1 SCGLR 167, the Supreme Court
speaking through Anin Yeboah JSC (as he then was) outlined the conditions for the
grant of Interlocutory Injunction as follows:
"Even though it is discretionary, we are of the view that a Trial in determining
Interlocutory Application must consider whether the case of an Applicant is not
frivolous and had demonstrated that he had legal or equitable rights which a Court
should protect. The Court is also enjoined to