REPUBLIC VRS. REGISTRAR DISTRICT COURT EX-PARTE: GOD’S MERCY CONSTRUCTION & TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER INTERESTED PARTY GYIMAH (GJ10/11/2025) [2025] GHAHC 63 (6 February 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, COMMERCIAL DIVISION HELD AT KUMASI ON THURSDAY 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE CHARLES KWESI BENTUM - HIGH COURT JUDGE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUIT NO. GJ10/11/2025 THE REPUBLIC VRS REGISTRAR DISTRICT COURT - RESPONDENT EX-PARTE: 1. GOD’S MERCY CONSTRUCTION & TRADING LTD - APPLICANTS 2. KWADWO KUMAH KRONUM - KUMASI AND JOSEPH GYIMAH - INTERESTED PARTY 201 35TH AVENUE NORTH APT 8 FARGO 58102 NORTH DAKOTA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALSO, OF AB-1013 ABUOHIA KYEREASE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME: 12:03PM. JUDGMENT: The present Application is for a twin prayer as follows: a) An Order of Certiorari directed at the District Court, Suame, Kumasi, Coram: His Worship Emmanuel Mawuli Ekuna (Esq.), to quash the ruling of the Court dated 27th May, 2024, in Suit No. C9/70/2024. b) An Injunction restraining the Respondent and the Interested Party from purporting to enforce the said ruling of the District Court the subject matter of this certiorari application and from interfering with the ownership, rent, possession and use of the disputed store by the Applicant. The Applicant’s grounds for the Application are: 1) That the decision of the District Court, to grant a mandatory injunction to the Interested Party by resorting to a law not applicable in the context of the case amounted to a patent error of law apparent on the face of the record. 2) That there has occasioned a patent error apparent on the face of the record, when the District Court, without making a definite pronouncement on whether the agreement between the Applicant and the Interested Party was a tenancy, will put the Interested Party in a position of a statutory tenant and order that possession be given to him. 3) That the District Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it proceeded to grant a mandatory injunction in favour of the Interested Party in a capacity different from what the Interested Party claims. 2 The Application stands opposed by the Interested Party. Both parties have filed their Statement of Case setting out fully their arguments and legal authorities. The undisputed facts provoking the instant Application is that, the Interested Party herein instituted an action in the District Court, Suame, Kumasi Ashanti Region for certain reliefs indorsed on the Writ of Summons. Substantively, the Plaintiff therein and Interested Party herein sought a declaration that, he is the beneficial owner of a single shop/store situate at AB-A-1013, Abuohia Kyerease, Kronum Market. On that self-same date, the Plaintiff therein and Interested Party herein applied to the Court for an Interlocutory Order compelling the Defendant to grant him access to the disputed shop pending the final determination of the suit. That Interlocutory Application was opposed by the Defendant therein and Applicant herein. On 27th May, 2024, the Honourable Court below granted the Application for an Order compelling the Defendant to grant Plaintiff therein and Interested Party herein access to the disputed shops pending the final determination of the suit. It is this Ruling which has resulted in the present Application for an Order of Certiorari to quash same and for a further Order to restrain the Interested Party herein from purporting to enforce the said Ruling of the District Court and from interfering with the ownership, rent, possession and use of the disputed store by the Applicant herein. 3 This is how the Court below delivered itself: “…This Court having weighed the facts has come to the conclusion that this is a proper case which the Order for mandatory interlocutory injunction must be granted. BY COURT Pursuant to Order 13 r 1(1) of C. I. 59, the applicant’s motion is granted subject to an undertaking in damages should the substantive action fail. Applicant shall sign an undertaking within 10 days with two guarantors who together with applicant shall be jointly and severally liable to compensate the respondent the sum of at least twenty thousand cedis (20,000) if he fails to establish his right to a permanent injunction. The respondent is ordered to place the applicant back in possession of the disputed store within 14 days. The respondent and everyone claiming through him are restrained from further interference of the disputed store until the issues in dispute are determined with finality …” The Court has read all the processes filed in the Application and considered the rival submissions of the parties per respective Counsel. In the case of Republic v Court of Appeal, Ex-Party: Ghana Cable Co. Ltd Barclays Bank Ghana Ltd – Interested Party, holding 1, it was held per Dr. Twum JSC (as he then was) as follows: “Certiorari is not concerned with the merits of the decision. It is a complaint about jurisdiction or some procedural irregularity like the breach of natural justice.” 4 It is the opinion of this Court that, the grounds of the Application are matters that goes to the merits of the matter the Court dealt with per its Ruling. The ground of an error patent on the face of the record as well as excess of the Court’s jurisdiction are not supported from the decision sought to be impugned by the instant Application. The Court do not find merit in the Application and dismisses same. There shall be no Order as to costs. (SGD.) H/L JUSTICE CHARLES KWESI BENTUM (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Bernard Osei Bonsu with Kwabena Boateng Ameyaw for the Interested Party. James Marshall Belieb for the Applicants. No legal representation for the Respondent. 5