THE TRUSTEES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ACHIMOTA vs KOF AGYEMAN & ANOTHER
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP, JUSTICE GIFTY AGYEI ADDO, HIGH COURT JUDGE
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff/Applicant filed a legal action seeking damages, recovery of possession, and a perpetual injunction against the Defendants for allegedly trespassing on a parcel of land in Achimota, Accra. The Plaintiff also sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Defendants from any activities on the said land, but the application was opposed by the Defendants. The court assessed whether the Plaintiff could positively identify the land in question, referencing the case of Anane and others vrs. Donkor and others [1965] GLR 188, which held that a claim for declaration of title or an order for injunction must fail if the land's identity is not clearly established. The court found that the Plaintiff failed to provide an adequate description of the land, leading to the dismissal of the interlocutory injunction application and awarding costs to the Defendants.
By its Writ of Summons accompanied by a Statement of Claim filed on 21st March, 2018, the Plaintiff/Applicant seeks against the Defendants severally and jointly: a) Damages for trespass; b) Order for recovery of possession of the parcel of land encroached upon by the defendants measuring about 225 feet by 270 square feet at Achimota, Accra.
c) Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants, their workmen, servants and agents from constructing any fence wall or any other structure by whatever name or description on the plaintiff’s land.
d) Costs of the action including Counsel’s fees.
The Plaintiff subsequently followed its action on 4th July, 2018 with an application for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction to ‘restrain the defendants, their agents, servants, workmen, associates, licensees, individuals or persons by whatever designation from carrying out the operation of restaurant or any other thing or business whatsoever directly or indirectly or carrying on any other building works pending the hearing and determination of this action‘. The application is supported by an eight-paragraphed affidavit with some Exhibits attached.
The Plaintiff/Applicant also filed a further Supplementary Affidavit on 27th August, 2018. The application has been opposed by an Affidavit in that regard filed on 18th July, 2018. Both parties filed their statements of case in compliance with the Rules of Court.
On 28th October, 2018, the application was argued before me.
In arguing the application, the Plaintiff/Applicant says that it acquired a parcel of land in 1946, per Exhibit ‘JN4A’. The land, according to the Plaintiff/ Applicant, is 5 acres and that it is a portion on which the Plaintiff/Applicant itself has built a church.
The Plaintiff/Applicant also refers me to Exhibits ‘JNI’ ‘JN2’ and ‘JN3’, the judgments of the court indicating its ownership and further stated that the Defendants/Respondents have trespassed on the said land as indicated, according to it, in the photographs, Exhibit ‘JN9’ series.
In opposing the application and also having regard to the submissions of Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant, Counsel for the Defendants/Respondents refers me to the case of Anane and others vrs. Donkor and others [1965] GLR 188, particularly holding 1 and has urged on me that the application should fail since the Plaintiff/Applicant has failed to positively identify the land it is claiming.
The Defendants/Respondents further submit that the Plaintiff/Applicant it