Court dismisses injunction against Oshuiman Stool
The Sowutuom High Court has dismissed an interlocutory injunction by the Nii Sempe Mensah Family of Ablekuma seeking an order to restrain any activity on a disputed 4,389.68 acres of land at Oshuiman in the Ga West Municipality.
Advertisement
The injunction application by the Nii Sempe Mensah Family followed a suit by the family against the Oshuiman Stool, and Nii Adotei Okropong II, the Mankralo of Oshuiman.
Counsel for the applicant was Godwin Nartey, while Mumin Mashood was lawyer for the Oshuiman stool and Nii Okropong.
Apart from dismissing the application for interlocutory injunction, the court, presided over by Justice Jane Harriet Akweley Quaye, also slapped the applicant -–Nii Sempe Mensah Family with a cost of GH5,000 in favour of the respondents.
It was the case of the applicant that the disputed 4,389.68 acres of land, which was being claimed by the Oshuiman Stool, fell within the vast portion of the family’s land.
The Nii Sempe Mensah Family therefore wanted the court to put an injunction on the respondents, its assigns, privies or agents from having any dealing with the disputed land pending the final determination of the substantive suit.
Ruling
However, in a ruling, throwing out the application for interlocutory injunction, the High Court held that the Nii Sempe Mensah Family failed to establish any legal right to the land which ought to be protected by the court through an order for interlocutory injunction.
It was the considered view of the court that the applicant had based its legal right to the land to the site plan, which was faulty in law because it had not been signed.
Other Trending Stories
“The court is of the view that since proof in law is a pre-requisite in establishing a claim, it is not convinced that the plaintiff has established his legal right based on the site plan,” the court held.
The court further held that even if the applicant had established a legal right, it could be compensated with damages at the end of the trial and therefore there would be no need for an order for interlocutory injunction.
“The court is of the view that if at the end of the case, the matter is determined in favour of the plaintiff, damages will suffice as compensation to the plaintiff depending on how they establish their case before this court.
Application refused,” the court ruled.
Writer’s email address: emma.hawkson@graphic.com.gh