Voice of the Lord Evangelical Church v. Apostle Samuel Dadzie
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- Sowah, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- Oppong, J.A.
- Mensah-Homiah, J.A.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal, per Cecilia H. Sowah, J.A., dismissed an interlocutory appeal by Voice of the Lord Evangelical Church seeking to restrain its former president from interfering with a disputed parcel of land. The High Court, Nkawkaw, had refused an interlocutory injunction on 23 April 2021. On appeal, the Church argued the ruling was against the weight of evidence and that the trial judge wrongly demanded proof of a prima facie case. Reviewing affidavits and exhibits, the Court noted denials by the alleged grantor, Edward Kwadwo Opoku, a Lands Commission complaint of forgery, and a 2019 Deed of Gift to Leaders Light Bible International Church. Applying American Cyanamid and Ghanaian precedents, the Court emphasized balance of convenience and maintaining the status quo. As the respondent operates a school and church on the land and the appellant showed no irreparable harm or existing installations, the Court affirmed the refusal of the injunction and dismissed the appeal.
SOWAH, (J.A):
This interlocutory appeal emanates from an application for interlocutory injunction filed by the Plaintiff/Applicant/Appellant to restrain the Defendant who is a former president of the Church from interfering with its right, title and interest in the parcel of land which is the subject of the dispute until the final determination of the suit.
On 23rd April 2021, the High Court Nkawkaw dismissed the application after concluding that the plaintiff/applicant had not been able to establish a prima facie case, and it would not be just or convenient to grant the application.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the plaintiff filed an appeal against same to this Court on 11th May 2021. The two grounds of appeal are that the ruling is against the weight of evidence filed before the Honourable court; and that the learned trial Judge erred when he held that the plaintiff/applicant has not established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of an injunction.
In this judgment, the plaintiff/applicant/appellant will be referred to as ‘the appellant’ and the defendant/respondent/respondent as ‘the respondent’
I shall first address the second ground of appeal which is that trial Judge erred when he held that the appellant had not established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of an injunction.
In his ruling, the trial judge stated that the appellant had failed to establish a prima facie case. It must be conceded that the trial judge incorrectly placed emphasis on a lack of ‘prima facie’ case when he refused the interlocutory injunction application.
The modern view on the guiding principles for granting interlocutory injunctions shifted with the decision in American Cyanamid Co., Ltd. v. Ethicon Ltd. [1975] 1 All ER 564. From an emphasis or a requirement to show a strong prima facie case, the decisions of our courts such as in Pountney vs Doegah [1987-88] 1 GLR 111, has been that it is not a requirement to establish a prima facie case. Once the court is satisfied that the case is not frivolous or vexatious, then it would weigh the balance of convenience. The court's decision may also turn on other factors, such as irreparable damage which cannot be remedied by the award of damages, with the overriding consideration being to maintain the status quo pending final determination of the substantive Suit.
See Welford Quarcoo vs. Attorney General [2012] 1 SCGLR 259.
The fundamental consideration has however remained that an applicant must first establ