Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
AYEBI, JA
1. In his writ of summons issued on 26th July 2013, the plaintiff/respondent claimed against the defendants/appellants the following reliefs:
(a) A declaration that the building being put up by the defendants at the open space at Abase is unlawful, illegal, unauthorized and dangerous.
(b) General damages for trespass.
(c) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, the agents, assigns, servants, labourers or any other person who derives title from putting up any building at the open space at Abase.
2. Upon the service of the writ of summons and statement of claim on the defendants, the plaintiff applied for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from continuing with the construction of the building at the open space at Abase pending the determination of the suit.
3. On 27th June 2014, the High Court granted the motion in the interest of public safety and restrained the defendants, their agents, privies and all who claim interest or title through them accordingly.
This appeal by the defendants is against the said order of 27th June, 2014.
The grounds of appeal are that:
(a)The High Court Judge did not exercise his discretion judiciously.
(b)The High Court Judge erred by relying on an affidavit filed on the 23rd June, 2014 and served on the defendants a day before the said ruling, and did not give the defendants the opportunity to respond to the same.
(c)Further grounds of appeal shall be filed upon receipt of the record of proceedings.
But the defendants/appellants did not file any further grounds of appeal.
4. Of the two grounds of appeal, counsel for the defendants/appellants (referred to as defendants) argued only ground (a) but was silent on ground (b). The said ground (b) is deemed abandoned and struck out.
Counsel for the defendants however proceeded to raise for the first time in his written submission and argued, the issue of capacity of Nana Adusei Poku, Sanaahene of Abase as the lawful attorney of the plaintiff/respondent (plaintiff for short).
5. At page 47 of the record of appeal is a copy of a purported power of attorney executed on 15th November 2013 in the United Kingdom by the plaintiff in favour of Nana Adusei Poku.
The power of attorney authorized Nana Adusei Poku to represent the plaintiff in all Stool Lands and indeed Court cases.
Based on that power of attorney, Nana Adusei Poku on 27th January, 2014 deposed to the affidavit in support of the motion on notice for an order of