NANA A. DARKO II v. NANA ABAM AKWASI DARKO
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OWUSU M., (PRESIDING)
- KORBIEH, J.A.
- DZAMEFE, J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The High Court initially restrained both parties from developing a disputed land following an interlocutory injunction application. The appellant, who asserted his rightful ownership based on previous unappealed judgments, appealed against this decision. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in restraining both parties without providing sufficient reasons and not considering the appellant's established legal rights. Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the order restraining both parties and specifically restrained the respondent from developing the disputed land. The Court of Appeal emphasized the principles guiding the granting of interlocutory injunctions and the importance of upholding unappealed judgments.
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A:
On 5-12-2013, the High Court (Land Division) Accra, restrained the parties in this suit following an application for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction pending the final hearing and determination of the suit. In its ruling, the court held that:
“I have carefully looked at the present application which is a motion for interlocutory injunction.
I have equally looked at the affidavit in opposition. I came to the decision that both parties need to be restrained in the case. Accordingly both parties are hereby restrained from any further assignment or development of the disputed land pending the determination of this case. For the avoidance of doubt, this order shall equally apply to the assigns, workmen, privies, etc of both parties.”
Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the plaintiff/appellant herein referred to as the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the following ground:
“The learned trial Judge erred in law and exercised his discretion in restraining both parties wrongly.”
Before dealing with the arguments advanced in support of this appeal, I will give a brief background of the case.
The appellant issued a writ of summons claiming against the defendant the following reliefs:
“a. A declaration that defendant has trespassed on to the land bounded on the North commencing on Pillar No. D4 on the bearing of 060.24 and distance of 883.09 from Survey Pillar on SG GAH 784/09/15AA which bearing and all other bearings are referred to meridian 1 West thence on the bearing of 112.50 and distance of 267.7 to Pillar No. D1 (Nana Akwasi Darko II Stool Land) and East commencing on the bearing of 223.42 and distance of 173.0 to Pillar No. 2 (Joe Farms) South commencing on the bearing of 259.54 and the distance of 153.5 to Pillar No. D3 (Nana Akwasi Darko II Stool Land) West commencing on the bearing of 005.21 and the distance of 257.0 to Pillar No. D4 (EKPO Village) end of commencement, covering total area of 0.93 acre (0.38 hect.) which forms part of land declared to belong to plaintiff’s family in the consolidated suits CLS 731/95 and 736/95 dated 23rd January 2009 by Acquaye, J. sitting as an additional High Court Judge and confirmed by Her Ladyship Barbara Ward-Acquah in the ruling dated 5th November, 2012 and described in the judgment plan of the consolidated suits and described as CE1 containing approximate area of 835.41 acres.
b. Damages for trespass.
c. Recovery of possession
d. Perpetual Injunction restr