GH - JOE ANSAH VS THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE CHURCH OF PENTECOST

This Ruling is in respect of an Application on Notice filed by the Plaintiff (Applicant) praying this Court for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction to restrain the Defendant/Respondent, its servants, agents, assigns, privies, successors, contractors, workmen from entering, trespassing, destroying, developing and/or alienating any portion of the disputed land until the final determination of the suit.

The Application was opposed by the Respondent and a Supplementary Affidavit by the Applicant was filed, pursuant to the leave of this Court to respond to the facts raised by the Respondent.

These were premised on four main grounds.

That the subject matter land was acquired by the Respondent from one Madam Alice Appiah in 2007. On this point, the Applicant submitted that there is no documentary evidence to sustain the claim.

That the Plaintiff’s grant was fraudulently made because his grantor was dead at the time the grant was made.

In rebuttal, the Applicant submitted that the Deed of Assignment clearly shows that his grantor was alive.

That the Applicant’s action is statute-barred.

Respondent argues that such an assertion cannot be contested on an affidavit evidence.

That the Attorney of the Plaintiff (Lawrence Acquah) has no power of attorney to commence the suit.

The Applicant attached a copy of the Power of Attorney which empowers him to initiate the action on behalf of the Plaintiff.

The Court’s view on the four issues raised are considered below: On the point that the Respondent has no reasonable documentary proof to show that it acquired the subject matter land from Madam Alice Appiah in 2007, I must say that even if it were so, that alone does not absolve the Applicant from proving his interest or title in the land, especially when the Respondent had not counterclaimed.

The onus largely lies on the Applicant.

On the point on statute-barred, I am inclined to agree with the Applicant that the manner in which it has been raised in the Respondent’s affidavit makes it practically difficult and inappropriate for the Court to consider it as a basis to refuse this Application.

The two other points appear to be compelling and hold the key to resolving this Application.

Fundamentally, the action herein appears to be incompetent from inception.

It must be noted that the Respondent challenged the capacity of the Attorney to commence the action.

The Applicant responded to this by tendering Exhibit ‘F’ to its Supplementary Affidavit.

A careful peru