Try asking the following...
RULING
The Chief Executive Officer of the Plaintiff Company on the 14th day of March 2022 brought the instant application to restrain the Defendants, their agents, assigns workers and representatives from interfering with Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment and possession of the land.
The Plaintiff claim it acquired a parcel of land at Abokobi from Scangold Investment and by a Deed of Variation dated 12th August 2015 a parcel of land measuring 3.70 acres or 1.50 Hectares was acquired from Scangold Investment.
That upon acquisition of the land it enjoyed quiet and peaceful stay on it and had since erected a fence wall and constructed two (2) single rooms for the caretaker in addition to a wooden structure for use as a washroom. The Plaintiff also permitted the caretaker to farm on the land by growing crops.
Plaintiff contended that Defendants without any permission brazenly and provocatively entered the land and broke down portion of the wall and also raised down all the cropping.
That during the latter part of 2021 and the early part of 2022 continued digging and erected a platform with the intention to commence building projects on it.
The Applicant contended that it complained about the illegal activities embarked on by the Defendants with the sole aim of taking possession of the land forcibly whilst they knew they did not have any legal title to it and which acts are likely to change the nature and character of the land to the detriment of the Plaintiff, the vested legal and beneficial owners of the disputed land.
That unless the Defendants are restrained by the Court they will continue with their nefarious and illegal activities to the detriment of the Plaintiff /Applicant before the final determination of the suit.
In moving the application, Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant submitted that the Respondent in their affidavit filed opposing the application attached pictures labelled Exhibit “C” Series.
Counsel argued that the pictures attached indicates some structures on the land but the 1st Defendant/Respondent has deliberately not indicated on same when the pictures were taken.
That the pictures as shown by the 1st Defendant/Respondent actually represent the development which went on despite the Court’s earlier admonishing to the 1st Defendant not to carry out any activity on the land and this order according to the Applicant the 1st Defendant completely defied.
In an affidavit in opposition filed dated 10th June 2022 deposed to by the 1st Defendant/Appl