PRINCETON MULTI PURPOSE AGENCY COMPANY LIMITED VS ALEX TENKORANG
November 29, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP ALEX OWUSU-OFORI (J)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Equity and Trusts
- Property and Real Estate Law
November 29, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Setting out the established authorities on interlocutory injunctions, the High Court, per His Lordship Alex Owusu-Ofori (J), summarized the American Cyanamid test alongside Ghanaian precedents including Wilford Quarcoo and Vanderpuye v Nartey. The applicant relied on Exhibit MK2, a Land Title Certificate over the disputed land, and pointed to Exhibit MK6, a prior decision of the same court (differently constituted) invalidating the 1st defendant grantors certificate. It further cited Exhibit MK4 to show the 1st defendants title traces to the Otopa We family, said to have been declared invalid, and denied any lack of capacity. The 1st defendants counsel countered that capacity is the lifeblood of litigation, citing Ex parte Aryeetey, and argued that Philip Narteys death as sole proprietor required letters of administration. Applying American Cyanamid, the court found a serious question to be tried and granted an injunction restraining both parties pending final determination.
The grounds upon which the Court will grant an application for Interlocutory Injunction was espoused by the Courts in the cases of
WILFORD QUARCOO VRS A-GEN & ANOR. (2012) 1 SCGLR 259
AMERICAN CYNAMID CO. VRS ETHICON LIMITED (1975) 1 ALL E.R 504
VANDERPUYE V NARTEY (1977) 1 GLR 428
a) That the applicant must establish there is a serious question to be determined.
b) That Applicant risk suffering irreparable damage incapable of being remedied by way of damages.
c) That on the balance of convenience it is proper to grant the interlocutory injunction.
The Applicant asserts that by Exhibit “MK2” attached to the affidavit in support of the application, it had Land Title Certificate covering the disputed land.
And that by Exhibit MK6 there is a decision by this Court differently constituted that the 1st Defendant grantor’s Land Certificate is invalid.
That by Exhibit “MK4” which was also attached to the application the 1st Defendant derives their title from the Otopa We family which has been declared invalid. And it is not true that it has no capacity to mount the instant action.
The 1st Defendant’s Counsel in his submission stated emphatically that capacity is the life blood of every litigation and once a party lacks capacity to institute an action the writ itself is a nullity and one cannot litigate in such an action. Reference was made to the case of the REPUBLIC VRS HIGH COURT, ACCRA EXPARTE ARYEETEY (ANKRAH INTERESTED PARTY) 2003-2004 1 SCGLR 398 at 405 the court speaking with the voice through Kpegah JSC.
Counsel further argued that once Philip Nartey died as a sole proprietor of the Plaintiff Company it behooves on the beneficiaries of Philip Nartey’s Estate to apply for Letters of Administration to administer the Estate which allegedly includes the property they are claiming.
As held by His Lordship Diplock in the American Cynamid case (Supra) this court holds the view that the claim brought by the Plaintiff is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is a serious question to be tried.
I will therefore grant the application by restraining both parties from having any dealings with the disputed land until the final determination of the suit.
(SGD)
ALEX OWUSU-OFORI (J)