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
This case involves a motion for stay of proceedings and suspension of consequential orders filed by the Applicants regarding a land dispute. The Applicants argue that a previous court order allowing both parties to develop portions of the disputed land has led to conflicts. They claim exceptional circumstances exist and that their appeal raises serious legal questions. The Respondents deny these claims and challenge the Applicants' capacity to make the application. The Court assessed the evidence, including various exhibits and affidavits. It found that the Applicants failed to demonstrate that the outcome of their appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay was not granted, and they did not establish exceptional circumstances or weighty legal issues. The Court noted that the previous order attempted to balance the interests of both parties. Consequently, the motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the Applicants.
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