S.S.F. LAWSON DOE & ORS v. DAVIDSON KWAME SUNU

JUDGMENT

On the 4th of September, 2014 the plaintiffs, suing as the lawful representatives of the Sunu Doe family of Sokode-Etoe near Ho in the Volta Region prayed this Court for the following reliefs;

An Order for declaration that any grant or alienation of the Plaintiffs' family land made by the Defendant is unlawful and same null and void.

An Order for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents and assigns from dealing with The Plaintiffs land in anyway.

Cost including Solicitor's fee."

The plaintiffs sued the defendant who is said to be a member of the plaintiffs’ family. It has been alleged by the Plaintiffs that the defendant even though a member of the plaintiffs family has unilaterally been selling the family land without authorization from the larger family. The defendant, it has been alleged has agents who he has engaged and which agents go about selling the family land. The plaintiffs have used all means to restrain the defendant to no avail and so the plaintiffs have applied for an injunction to restrain the defendant from wantonly dissipating family land.

When the Writ was issued the defendant per his Solicitor Mr. Emile Atsu Agbakpe entered a conditional appearance on behalf of the defendant. Counsel, even though in the affidavit of the defendant alluded to several matters including the fact that the plaintiffs have no capacity to sue, counsel for the defendant never moved. I will therefore take it that the conditional appearance of the defendant is not a conditional appearance as the Motion/Application had been abandoned. But I see from the record that this court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, assigns, workmen and privies from unlawful acts of selling family land indiscriminately as the defendant's personal land. Even though counsel for the defendant never moved his Motion of conditional appearance the defendant entered appearance. In the relevant paragraphs of the defendant's Statement of Defence the defendant averred;

“5) In further denial, defendant says that he inherited a piece and parcel of land from his father which does not form part of Sunu family land at Adaklu Kodzobi.

1. Defendant says that this is the land which he disposes of and he needs not the consent of the plaintiffs so to do

2. Defendant in further denial would say that the plaintiffs have little knowledge about defendant's father's personal property hence in their ignorance labeled it as family property ----"