SARAH NAMO MODEN v. SARAH NAMO MODEN

This Ruling is in respect of Motion on Notice for an Order for Interlocutory and

Mandatory Injunction under order 25 Rule (3) of CI 47.

This was filed on the 5th of December, 2022 by Counsel for and on behalf of

Defendants/Applicants herein, on the 5th of December, 2022 Defendants/Applicants

are praying this Court for an order restraining the Plaintiff/Respondent herein, either

by herself her agents, assigns, servants, workmen or whosoever, howsoever or

otherwise from developing any portion of the disputed land or from disposing of all

or any part of the disputed land to any third party pending the final determination

of this suit.

Defendants/Applicants contend in their Supporting Affidavit that Prampram lands

are owned and controlled by the Larkpleh Quarter of which the Gberbie Ayiku

Family of Larkpleh Prampram constitute one of the gates of the Larkpleh Quarter

and the land in dispute falls within lands owned and controlled by the said family to

which the 1st-8th Defendants/Applicants belong.

That allodial interest in Prampram lands are vested in families and the land in

dispute, the subject matter herein is owned by Larkpleh Quarter. Per their Exhibit 1

which is an extract of the Jackson report (Transcript Copy of Note No.17).

In the matter of the Stool Lands Boundaries Ordinance, 1959 Shai Ningo and

Prampram Order At Pg. 101, the Chief of Larkpleh –Prampram, Tetteh Efum II

testified to this fact before the commissioners of Enquiry, that Larkpleh were the

first to arrive in Prampram Exhibit 2 attached is a document headed Extract from

Prampram-Poni Disturbance Exhibit 3 is attached which is a Copy of the

instrument evidencing the transfer of the Gbebie Ayiku Family of Larkpleh of the

lands they granted to the colonial government for use for the Construction of

warehouses, custom offices and for the establishment of a port in March 1889.

They have also attached (Exhibit 4) which is a site plan describing the lands owned

by the Defendants/Applicants family.

Their (Exhibit 5) series are photographs purporting to be a portion of the disputed

land which Plaintiff/Respondent has alienated vacant portions to 3rd parties who are

busily developing portions of same.

Defendants/Applicants are also contending that if Plaintiff/Respondent is not

restrained and the status quo maintained, they will suffer irreparable and

irreversible damage which will change the character and form of the land in dispute

as the Plaintiff/Respondent has