THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF EBENEZER SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL VS ATORNEY GENERAL & ANOR
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU (J.)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Administrative Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the High Court, His Lordship Alexander Osei Tutu refused an interlocutory injunction sought by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants and their officers, agents, assigns, workmen and contractors from interfering with a forty‑five‑acre parcel pending trial. The plaintiff asserted more than twelve years’ possession, invoking Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1972 to claim possessory title. The 2nd defendant opposed, arguing the land is state property acquired by Executive Instrument and leased since 1996 to the State Housing Company, which has exercised ownership over that land and adjoining state lands. The respondent further maintained that adverse possession cannot apply to state lands under Section 236 of Act 1036. Emphasizing judicial caution against restraining statutory entities and the Government, and noting the Government’s intended ultra‑modern hospital project for the municipality, the court found the balance of convenience did not favor the plaintiff and declined the injunction, leaving any possessory claim to be ventilated at trial.
The Plaintiff in this Application is praying for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the Defendants and their Officers, agents, assigns, workmen and Contractors etc. , from interfering with any portion of its forty-five acre land pending the determination of the suit.
According to the Plaintiff, it has been in possession of the subject matter land for over twelve years and that confers possession title on it by virtue of Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1972. The Application was opposed by the 2nd Defendant, arguing that the subject matter land is a State Land acquired under an Executive Instrument (Exhibit ‘MC’) which was subsequently leased to the State Housing Company, a State entity, since 1996. The Company has exercised rights of ownership over the land together with the other adjoining lands owned by the State.
The Respondent denies the ownership of the Plaintiff and contends that adverse possession cannot be exercised over a State Land by virtue of the law. (See Section 236 of Act 1036) After carefully considering the Application and the submission of both Counsel, I regret to say that I am unable to accede to the request and prayer of the Applicant.
As a matter of fact, the Courts have hesitated to grant Interlocutory Injunctions against statutory entities. (See WELFORD QUARCOO VR A. G. AND ANOR) [2012], SCGLR 259 AT 260, YAW OSAFO MARFO VRS EOCO [2012] 45 GMJ 85 AT 92–93, REPUBLIC BRS HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK DIVISION) ACCRA, EXPARTE; GHANA LOTTO OPERATIONS ASSOCIATION (NATIONAL LOTTERY AUTHORITY – INTERESTED PARTY) [2009] SCGLR 372 AT 400 AND RANSFORD FRANCE (NO. 1) VRS E. C. AND A. G. [2012] 1 SCGLR 689 AT HOLDING 1. The Applicant could not demonstrate that on the balance of convenience, it stands to suffer greater hardship.
The Respondent claims the Government requires the land, which it owns, for an Ultra-modern Hospital Project for the benefit of the people in the Municipality.
To injunct the Government at this stage on its own land does not seem to me to be right, without prejudice to the Applicant to ventilate its possessory claim in the substantive matter.
In light of the above, I decline to grant the Plaintiff’s Application for Interlocutory Injunction.
(SGD. ) H/L ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT.