THOMAS APPIAH ANSAH v. NANA KATAKYIRE II & ORS
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- S.MARFUL-SAU, J.A (PRESIDING)
- C.J.HONYENUGA, J.A
- DENNIS D. ADJEI, J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this interlocutory appeal, the High Court had previously granted an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' farmlands. The 1st defendant appealed, arguing that the plaintiffs did not properly identify the land in dispute and that the trial court erred in issuing the injunction. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the identity of the land must be clearly established for an injunction to be enforceable. The appeal was allowed, and the interim injunction was set aside.
DENNIS ADJEI, J.A.
This is an interlocutory appeal against the ruling of the High Court Sekondi. The ruling was delivered on 21st January, 2011. In the ruling, the trial High Court granted an interim injunction to restrain the Defendants, their agents and privies from interfering with the Plaintiffs possession on their farmlands which is the subject matter in dispute and especially for a further Order restraining the 4th Defendant from processing any lease document made between the 1st Defendant, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants until the Order is varied by the court upon good and reasonable grounds.
The 1st Defendant/Appellant filed Notice of Appeal against the ruling by the trial High Court on 25th January, 2011. The five (5) grounds of appeal filed by the 1st Defendant/Appellant are as follows:
i. The Plaintiffs have not identified the land(s) in respect of which they sue.
ii. The identities of the Plaintiffs are not known
iii. Lawyers for the Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the provisions of the Order 5 rule (3) and (4) of the High Court, (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 C.I. 47
iv. The Plaintiffs/Applicants have not on the face of the documents filed made out a prima facie case to warrant the grant of an Order of interim injunction and
v. On the balance the Defendants will suffer far greater hardship by the grant of the Order of interim injunction.”
The Appellant indicated his intention to file additional grounds of appeal but he did not.
I will start with ground three (3) of the appeal. It is the case of the Appellant that the lawyers for the Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the provisions of Order 5 Rules (3) and (4) of the High Court, (Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 C.I. 47. Order 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules C.I. 47 is about persons with disability. Order 5 Rule 3 is about a minor attaining the age of 18 years. Order 5 Rule 4 is about mental disorder of a party after proceedings have commenced. The Order quoted by the Appellant has not got any relevance to the application for injunction.
The Appellant on the other hand argued Order 2 Rule 5(3) and (4) of C.I. 47 in his written submission without applying to this court to amend his ground of appeal. The procedure adopted by the Appellant offends Rule 8(8) of Court of Appeal Rules 1997 C.I. 19. It provides as follows:
“The Appellant shall not, without the leave of the court,
argue or be heard in support of a ground, of objection
not mentioned in the notice of appeal, but t