TUNJI OYEWOLE VS REDROW DEVELOPMENT LTD & ORS

RULING ON A MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION AND FOR AN ORDER TO DISJOIN THE 4TH DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

1. INTRODUCTION & FACTS OF THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT’S CASE

[i] This matter has quite an interesting history.

The Plaintiff/Applicant herein contends that in or around 2010 he acquired two plots of land at Santeo, Quartey Papafio Hills through the 1st Defendant Estate Company and obtained the requisite documents covering same.

The Plaintiff then immediately went into possession by placing a caretaker thereon, to secure and protect the said land. [ii] In spite of the acquisition of all documents covering the land, including a land title certificate, and despite the presence of a caretaker, the Plaintiff was informed that the 4th Defendant was developing the land for and on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants; and the Plaintiff averred that his further checks revealed it was the 1st Defendant Chief Executive Officer, who had purportedly sold the Plaintiff’s land to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.

Not having authorised any person to sell and/or dispose of the disputed land on his behalf, the Plaintiff instituted an action against the Defendants herein, contending that the 1st Defendant’s allegations that the Plaintiff authorised the 1st Defendant to sell the disputed land on the Plaintiff’s behalf is wholly untrue. [iii] The Plaintiff therefore sought recovery of possession and damages for trespass against the Defendants, among other reliefs, on the writ of summons issued against the Defendants before this Court.

From the record, there were issues with serving the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, but I believe eventually, all the Defendants were duly served; and the Plaintiff has thereafter brought an application for injunction, seeking to restrain the Defendants from entering and undertaking any development or construction works on the dispute plot. [iv] Among others, the Plaintiff contended that the 1st Defendant purported to execute an indenture for and on behalf of the Plaintiff for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants by forging the Plaintiff’s signature.

According to the Plaintiff, he was in the U. K at all material times and he could not have executed the said indenture dated the 19th August 2015. Until the final judgment of the matter before the Court, therefore, the Plaintiff prayed the Court to grant an injunction against the Defendants, as the 1st Defendant no longer has the right to alienate the disputed land to anyone else, having sold same to the Plai