Try asking the following...
RULING
Plaintiff/Applicant herein Mr. Henry Doe Samlafo filed this motion for
Interlocutory Injunction against Defendant; Ashaiman Municipal Assembly for an
order to restrain the Defendants whether by themselves, their servants, their agents,
workmen, privies or otherwise howsoever from carrying out any acts of construction
of any structures on the land, unlawful entry, disturbing Plaintiff’s use and
occupation of the land, from carrying out any form of construction works including
the construction of any building or other on the Plaintiff’s acquired land until the
final determination of the pending suit.
Plaintiff/Applicant avers that he acquired the said property described as Plot No.
Ash/Mkt/A/138 Ashaiman, Tema from TDC on or about the 2nd of February 2017. He
has exhibited Exhibit A and B. (Offer letter and Right of Entry Letter respectively).
It is Plaintiff/Applicant’s case that he has been in peaceful and unchallenged
occupation and possession of the property until Defendant trespassed on the said
land for which he caused his lawyer to write to Defendant “Exhibit G”.
Plaintiff/Applicant is therefore praying the Court to grant an order for Interlocutory
Injunction against the Defendant/Respondent herein.
In their Affidavit in opposition, Defendant/Respondent states that
Plaintiff/Applicant before instituting this action failed to comply with Section 210 of
the Local Governance Act 2016.
That Non-compliance with a mandating statutory provision renders the Writ of
Summons and Statement of Claim null and void.
Defendant/Respondent avers that Plaintiff/Applicant’s Exhibit G, which is a letter to
Defendant/Respondent stating their intention to seek redress in Court is self-serving.
It is further averred by Defendant/Respondent that a letter dated 7th June 2023 from
TDC, Applicant’s Grantor shows that the land on which the Respondent is
conducting his construction works is different and not the same which was granted
to the Applicant herein (Exhibit EK series).
Paragraph 14 states that:
That the Applicant having failed to comply with mandatory statutory
requirement and also coupled with the fact that his own Grantor T.D.C has
indicated that where the Respondent is engaging in its construction works is
on a different land and that land does not belong to the Applicant herein then
clearly there is no legal basis to support the instant Injunction Application,
so the instant application is frivolous and unmeritorious and same should