RICHARD ANANG LARYEA v. MR. COOKE & ORS
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- SAMUEL MARFUL-SAU, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- K. N. ADUAMA OSEI, J.A.
- L. L. MENSAH, J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Defendants against a High Court ruling favoring the Plaintiff concerning a disputed piece of land. The trial court granted an interlocutory injunction without allowing the Defendants to present their case, leading to the Defendants' appeal on grounds of violation of natural justice. The appellate court found that the trial court erred by not considering the Defendants' filings and not granting them a hearing. The appellate court set aside the interlocutory injunction and emphasized the importance of the audi alteram partem rule and procedural fairness, directing that both parties be restrained from further land development pending the final case determination.
This is an appeal launched by the Defendants/Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the Defendants) against the ruling of the High Court (Land Division), Accra on the 2nd day of April 2014 in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff).
The facts which engendered this appeal can be stated briefly as follows: On the 19th day of February 2014, the Plaintiff instituted an action against the Defendants in the Registry of the court below claiming the following reliefs:
(1) Declaration of title to the land “described in Paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim.”
(2) Recovery of possession from Defendants.
(3) Perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendants, assigns, agents and workmen from interfering with the Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of the land.
(4) Damages for trespass and property damage.
The land subject-matter of this appeal is situated at Baatsonaa, Accra.
In his eight-paragraph statement of claim, the Plaintiff alleged that he acquired the disputed land from the Nungua Stool on 28th July 2011 by way of a lease for a period of 50 years.
He went into possession of the land by clearing same after which he delivered 500 pieces of 6 inches cement blocks on the land.
The Plaintiff said in January 2014 when he commenced construction of a building on the disputed land, the Defendants sent a bull-dozer at night and demolished everything on the land. Thereafter the Defendants commenced construction of a building on his property. The Plaintiff averred that the grantors of the Defendants have no interest in the land nor capacity to alienate land to Defendants.
In order to stop what he considered to be trespassory acts of the Defendants, the Plaintiff on 20th February 2014 brought application for interlocutory injunction at the court below under Order 25 rule 1(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 C. I. 47.
On the 2nd of April 2014, the trial court heard the application without any input from the Defendants. In other words the trial judge alleged that because the Defendants failed to file any process in reaction to the Plaintiff’s application, the application was granted to restrain the Defendants.
It is against the above orders that the Defendants appealed to this Court contending that the Defendants were not given a hearing.
There are two grounds of appeal filed by the Defendants. These are:
(1) The trial judge erred when he held that the Defendants/Respondents were served with the Plaintiff’s Writ of S