THOMAS APPIAH ANSAH & OTHERS v. NANA KATAKYIRE II & OTHERS

HONYENUGA, J.A.

This appeal is by the 1st defendant/appellant against the decision of the High Court, Sekondi dated the 21st day of January, 2011. The said Court granted an interlocutory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and the defendants. The said order is reproduced in full as follows:-

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, the application for an order of interlocutory injunction be and same is hereby granted conditionally. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS and their agents and privies be and are hereby RESTRAINED from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession of their farmlands which are the subject-matter in dispute herein and that the 4th defendant herein is further restrained from processing any lease document made between the 1st defendant and the 2nd and 3rd defendants until the final determination of this suit.

IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the Western Regional Surveyor, Survey Department of the Lands Commission be and are hereby appointed to map out the farms and/or farmlands actually occupied by the respective plaintiffs herein indicating the nature and extent of the farms and/or farmlands claimed by the plaintiffs herein and juxtapose same with the land which the 1st defendant has leased or intends to lease for 50 years to the 2nd and 3rd defendants herein and which said land is supposedly the subject matter of the document entitled.

PRE CONTRACT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LAND AT WASSA MANSO dated 23rd August 2007 between the Chief of Wassa Manso of the one part and RAPIDOIL GHANA LIMITED on the other part”.

In this appeal, I shall refer to the 1st defendant/appellant as the appellant and the plaintiffs/respondents as the respondents.

The facts of this appeal are that the respondents are food crops, oil palm and cocoa farmers resident within the Wassa Manso Division of the Wassa Fiase Traditional Area. The respondent is the Divisional Chief of Wassa Manso and the overlord of the respondents. The respondents and their predecessors cultivated their farms after having acquired the land from some families in Manso. The respondents were in effective possession and control of the said land until 2007 when the 2nd defendant instructed a Surveyor to demarcate their farmland for an agricultural project. The respondents upon inquiries found that it was the appellant who had intended to release about five thousand (5,000) hectares which was subsequently increased to 10,000 to 11,000 hectares of their land to the 2nd defendant wi