MIKE NANA TINEDU A. AMPONG vs SADIQUE ISSAH & ANOR
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE NICHOLAS M.C. ABODAKPI J.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Equity and Trusts
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The High Court addressed a motion for interlocutory injunction concerning a disputed property. The Plaintiff/Applicant claimed ownership through a registered 1991 indenture from his father, Francis Amaning Ampong, and alleged that the Defendants, led by Sidique Issah, unlawfully entered, posted notices, broke doors, removed furniture into the open, and engaged in demolition. Exhibits, including the indenture and photographs, confirmed demolition and posted notices. Issah denied wrongdoing, attacked the indenture as fraudulent, and asserted possession through his mother, Felicia Amaning, amounting to adverse possession. Applying Order 25 of C.I. 47/04 and the standard factors—interest, triable issues, irreparable harm, and preservation of the status quo—the court found title was disputed and should not be determined at the interlocutory stage. It granted a partial injunction: the Applicant may not eject Issah, and Issah may not continue demolition or development, maintaining the status quo pending trial; no costs were awarded.
This motion for interlocutory injunction was filed on 24/10/2018. The writ in the action, has an order for ejectment of 1st Defendant from the property, damages etc. , as part of the indorsement on it.
The deposition in support showed that, Plaintiff/Applicant is owner of the disputed property, the property has been described, the source of tittle to it, has been traced to Francis Amaning Ampong, whom, Applicant described as his father.
He alleged there has been transfer of it to him as in an indenture dated 11/09/1991, which is duly registered.
Secondly, from paragraph 7 he stated his grievances, as he alleged defendants entered the property, and posted NOTICES there without any authority.
He alleged 1st Defendant/Respondent engaged workmen to break doors and furniture and personal effect have been removed from rooms and left outside, at the mercy of the weather.
He stated details of other conduct of demolition caused by Respondent.
I have perused EXHIBIT ‘MNT 1’ the indenture, dated 11/09/1991 as well as Exhibit photographs, which confirmed demolition, and notices posted as alleged.
It also confirmed furniture and other items left outdoor as alleged.
What is offered in opposition is found in the affidavit of Sidique Issah, the 1st Defendant/Respondent, herein.
Firstly, he denied every averment made against him.
Secondly, he attacked the authenticity of EXHIBIT ‘MNT 1’ the indenture, when he stated it is tainted with fraud . And for EXHIBIT ‘MNT 2’ series, he described them as self-serving evidence.
The details of the reasons in support of the averment could be gleaned, in the deposition of the Respondent up to the end of his affidavit.
In the statement of defence filed on his behalf, it has been alleged, Felicia Amaning who is his mother, is the person who has been put in possession of the portion of the house, he presently occupies.
The above, is a claim of adverse possession, and authority to remain in possession until the true owner is determined.
The Applicant has not asked for title to be declared in his favour in the action.
But his title has been challenged in the defence on the record.
This Court has perused the statement of case filed by both sides.
ASSESSMENT OF AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE
The under listed are the principles that are applicable to the motion:
1. An applicant in an interlocutory injunction application must establish that he has interest (whether enforceable at law or equity), that has been flouted, unjustifiably by th