STEPHEN ADJEI AKPOR & 3 ORS VS THE STATE HOUSING CO. LTD & 5 ORS
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE NICHOLAS M.C. ABODAKPI J.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Applicants sought a stay of proceedings and suspension of consequential orders arising from interlocutory injunction proceedings in a land dispute. Filed on 13/07/2018 with a deposition by Benjamin Annang Adjei, the motion argued that prior orders permitting both the 1st Respondent and the Applicants to continue developing portions of the land have triggered confrontations because the parties’ developments overlap on the same plots. The Respondent, through deponent Samuel Atobrah, denied the Applicants’ averments, challenged the exhibits, and raised objections including lack of capacity and no exceptional circumstances. A ruling dated 22/05/2018 had restrained demolition, barred fresh grants, and limited development to areas designated for Police and AdMA projects. Applying the discretionary standards for stay—nugatory-effect and exceptional-circumstances—the High Court found no contradiction between orders and no exceptional grounds. The motion was dismissed, with costs of GH¢1,000.00 awarded against the Applicants and in favour of the 1st Respondent.
This motion for stay of proceedings/suspension of consequential orders filed
on 13/07/2018 has a deposition made by Benjamin Annang Adjei in
support.
The averments are to the effect that on 26/01/2018, a writ had been filed by
Applicants and a motion for interlocutory injunction was filed the same day
too, by the Applicants.
Furthermore, the reason for the application under consideration could be
found in paragraph 6, where it has been stated, this Court (differently
constituted) gave consequential orders, in a motion for interlocutory
injunction (as it EXHIBIT ‘BAF 2’), which permitted 1st Respondent to
develop some projects. And Applicants were also permitted to develop the
portion of land granted to them.
It has been contended that the Court erred in granting that order, as it has
resulted in series of confrontations on the land, as these developments the
Court permitted both sides to execute, fall on the same plots being claimed
by parties to the dispute.
There are annexures:
EXHIBIT ‘BAA 1’ Order of interlocutory injunction
EXHIBIT ‘BAA 2’ Consequential order
EXHIBIT ‘BAA 3’ Photographs with two men in uniform
EXHIBIT ‘BAA 3B’ Photograph
BY COURT: R U L I N G
EXHIBIT ‘BAA 4’ An excavator photograph
EXHIBIT ‘BAA 4B’ An excavator at work
EXHIBIT ‘BAA 4C’ Photograph
EXHIBIT ‘BAA 4D’ Photograph bare land
EXHIBIT ‘BAA 5’ Notice of Appeal
It is applicants case that, they have demonstrated that exceptional
circumstances exist to warrant the grant of the application in their favour.
And that the consequential order has created the source of conflict on the
land and Respondents are demolishing and developing the land in ways that
will change the nature of it, when this application is not granted.
In addition, it has been stated, the appeal has raised serious questions of law
for determination by the appellate court, therefore, the course of justice with
be served if the application is granted.
What is offered in rebuttal, is found in the deposition of Samuel Atobrah
made on behalf of 1st Defendant/Respondent.
Firstly, all depositions in paragraph 5 through to 22 were denied.
And EXHIBIT ‘BAA1’ was described as not a true reflection of the order
this Court made (i.e.) order of interlocutory injunction.
And EXHIBIT ‘3’ and ‘4’ have been described as not being relevant pieces
of evidence.
Secondly, it was averred that Applicants grantee do not have grants on any
parcel of land covered by the contracts 1st Respondent is e