KING ODAIFIO WELENTSE III v. T & T PROPERTIES LTD. & TORGBOR MENSAH

JUDGMENT

MARGARET WELBOURNE J.A.

The Plaintiff’s (hereinafter refer to as Respondent) appeal is against the ruling of the High Court delivered on 20th February 2013.

Brief Facts

On 2nd November 2012, the Respondent filed a motion on notice for Interlocutory injunction seeking to restrain the Defendants (hereinafter referred to as Appellants), their workmen, assigns and privies from changing the status quo of the land in dispute. The Respondent contended that the Appellants were given an assignment of the land by Ghanachix Farms. The Respondent claimed that the land in dispute is part of Nungua Stool Lands which was taken over by the Tema Development Corporation (TDC) and that the Appellants are building on the land notwithstanding all caution and warnings. The Appellants opposed the Respondent’s application and contended that the Respondent does not own the land and that neither does he have any title or right or interest in the land in dispute.

The Appellants applied to the TDC who thereafter leased a piece of land (which is part of the land acquired by the Government) to the Appellants for a term of 60 years. He further applied to TMA to develop the land and was granted a building permit. Thus as far as the Appellants was concerned, it had duly acquired a right title and interest in the land in dispute from the TDC; the rightful owner of the land. It was the contention of the Appellants that after the acquisition of the land by the Government in 1952, the Respondent lost any title, right or interest in the land in dispute.

The Appellants contended that although the Respondent in paragraph 5 of his affidavit in support of his application stated that he has duly registered the land in dispute, he failed to exhibit the said registered document to his application.

On 29th November 2012, the leaned trial Judge dismissed the Respondent’s application as devoid of any merit and awarded cost of GH¢500.00 against him.

On 19th December 2012, the Respondent filed the same application before the same Court and deposed to the same facts which were deposed to in the earlier application that was dismissed. The only difference was that the Respondent attached a site plan which he claimed is the site plan of the Appellants. The Appellants in their Affidavit in Opposition to the motion relied on the averments in the earlier affidavit filed on 14th November 2012 in opposition to the Respondent’s first motion.

The Appellants contended that the second application was