MOKAB COMPANY GH. LTD. v. BRAGHA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OWUSU M., (PRESIDING)
- KORBIEH, J.A.
- DZAMEFE, J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around the refusal of the High Court to grant an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant/respondent company from dealing with a piece of land until the final determination of a suit. The appellant claimed that this refusal was against the weight of evidence and argued that an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable damage, accusing the defendant of bad faith and potential fraud. However, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision, stating that damages would be an adequate remedy and stressing the importance of third parties' rights being considered. The appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A:
On 18th July, 2012, the High Court, Accra, refused the plaintiff/appellant company’s application for interlocutory injunction seeking to restrain the defendant/respondent company either by itself, privies, through its officers, workers, agents, servants, assigns, etc. from entering, using, developing, selling, assigning, allocating or dealing in any manner whatsoever with any portion or all that piece of land being the subject matter of this suit, pending the final determination of this suit.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the plaintiff/appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the following ground:
“That the ruling is against the weight of evidence adduced in support of the application and the decision is manifestly unfair against the plaintiff”
Before dealing with the arguments advanced in support and against this appeal, I will give a brief background of this case.
By its writ of summons, the plaintiff company claimed against the defendant company the following:
“a. An order for specific performance of the 17-8-2010 written agreement between the plaintiff and defendant and for the defendant to transfer the title documents to the land referred to in paragraph 1 and Schedule ‘A’ of the Agreement, from its name to B & M Company Limited and all monies and benefits received from the sale/lease of portions of the said land.
b. Alternative to relief ‘A’ above, an Order by way of specific performance for the defendant to transfer seventy-five percent (75%) title ownership of the land, as referred to in paragraph 1 and schedule ‘A’ of the 17-8-2010 Agreement, to the plaintiff.
c. Damages in lieu of or in addition to specific performance, as stated in paragraph ‘A’ or ‘B’ above.
d. Interest on all sums found due and payable to the plaintiff either pursuant to contract or pursuant to Rules 1 – 4 of Court (Award of Interest and post judgments interest) Rules 2005 (C. I. 52).
e. Costs
f. Further or other reliefs as this Court might deem fit.”
In the statement of claim that accompanied the writ of summons, the plaintiff averred that, by an Agreement dated 17-8-2010, the parties entered into a Partnership Agreement to join funds to raise capital for the purchase of 30.11 acre land behind the Trade Fair site. Pursuant to this Agreement, the parties established a company by name B & M Company Limited, for which all title documents on the land would be transferred into after securing same.
Additionally, a b