Nii Borlabi Dzene Stool v. David Asante

MARIAMA OWUSU, J. A.

On 7th day of November, 2014, the High Court (Land Division) Accra, in an application for interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant, his agents, etc from exercising any ownership rights over the property in dispute pending the final determination of the suit ruled among other things as follows: “Again, there is evidence before the Court that over 20 acres of land leased to Emmanuel Otis Asiedu-Agyeman had already been leased to developers who had developed same as per Exhibits“DA1, DA2, DA3 and DA4. These developments are almost completed and therefore an injunction cannot be granted, since the act that the plaintiff/applicant intends to prevent had already been done.

It must also be stated that those who have developed their grants are not parties in this suit and therefore cannot (sic) restrain them even if the plaintiff/applicant has established that he or the family has an interest that ought to be protected as held by the Supreme Court in In Re Ashalley Botwe Lands, Adjetey Agbosu And Others Vrs. Kotey And Others (2003-2004)SCGLR 420 where it was held by Wood JSC as follows: I see an order directed at the beneficiaries who were never parties to this action, persons who have acquired lands from the defendants but who were, however not heard in these proceedings, contrary to the fundamental and plain rule of natural justice, the audi alteram partem rule.

The order of annulment or cancellation of their documents without notice to them and without having given them a hearing is in my view erroneous as the intention is to dispossess them of their properties.

Application is therefore dismissed with cost of Gh¢1, 000. 00 against plaintiff/applicant. ”Dissatisfied with the above decision the plaintiff/applicant mounted this appeal on the following grounds: a. That the ruling was erroneous in law and amounted to a wrongful exercise of discretion.

b. That the trial Judge failed to appreciate that on the face of the pleadings and affidavit evidence the appellants had a relatively stronger case which should have warranted a grant of the application for interlocutory injunction to wit; i. The appellant was in physical possession and occupation of the disputed land ii.

The appellant exhibited documents which confirm the legal rights of the appellant deserving of the court’s protection.

c. That the trial Judge erred in fact and law when he held that the grant to Emmanuel Otis Asiedu-Agyeman is 35. 77 acres but not 10 acres as all