BOAKYE VRS. BOAKYE (LD/0034/2023) [2024] GHAHC 123 (3 July 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, LAND COURT DIVISION, HELD IN ACCRA ON WEDNESDAY THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2024, BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE NABEELA NAEEMA WAHAB MS. SUIT NO. LD/0034/2023 YAW BOAKYE - PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT/ APPLICANT VRS EDWARD OSEI BOAKYE TRUST FUND - DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT RULING I. BACKGROUND PLAINTIFF’S CASE 1. The Plaintiff instituted an action against the Defendant, a Trust Fund, by a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed on 26th October 2022. 2. It was the case of the Plaintiff that before his death, his father hereafter referred to as the “Testator” acquired a leasehold interest in parcels of land known as plots number 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 16, all of which are situate at Airport Commercial Centre in Accra. The Plaintiff stated that the Testator’s interest in these parcels of land is evidenced by a lease agreement dated 24th October 1974 and is for a period of 50 years certain, from 1st November 1974 and up to the year 2024. __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 1 of 46 3. It was the further case of the Plaintiff that before his death, his father sold his interest in plots number 2 and 3 to him except that the Testator could not execute the necessary instruments required to transfer his interest in plots number 2 and 3 to him before he passed on. 4. The Plaintiff stated that in his Will, the Testator directed the Defendant Trust Fund to be set up and stated that any properties not specifically mentioned in the will was to be given to the Defendant Trust Fund. 5. The Plaintiff maintained that although plots number 2 and 3, hereafter also referred to as “the subject land” were not specifically mentioned in the Testator’s will, they had already been sold to him and are therefore not part of the residue of the Testator’s estate to be taken over by the Defendant. 6. The Plaintiff stated that he has recently noticed that the Defendant has entered plots number 2 and 3, cleared the said parcels of land with an intention to develop same. 7. By his action, the Plaintiff sought a declaration that he “purchased the Testator’s interest in plots numbers 2 and 3”, the subject land, described as situate at Airport Commercial Centre, Accra. 8. Acknowledging the Defendant’s possession of the subject land, the Plaintiff by his action also sought an order for recovery of possession of the subject land from the Defendant and an order of “perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, assigns and all persons claiming any interest whatsoever in the said lands through the Defendant from remaining on, re-entering, developing, or in any manner dealing with and/ or interfering with the Plaintiff’s rights to the said lands.” (Emphasis added) DEFENDANT’S CASE __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 2 of 46 9. In a Statement of Defence filed on 17th November 2022, the Defendant noted and stated that although the Plaintiff’s action had been instituted in respect of plots number 2 and 3 only, as stated by the Plaintiff in his Statement of Claim, the Testator had a lease hold interest in plots number 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 16, all situate at Airport Commercial Centre in Accra. The Defendant added that the interest of the Testator in all of the plots numbered 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 16 is evidenced by one Lease dated 24th October 1974, hereafter referred to as the ”Lease”. 10. The Defendant also stated in its Statement of Defence that the Plaintiff proposed a lease of plots number 2 and 3 to the Testator and not an outright sale. The Defendant added that it was the Plaintiff’s own case as stated in his pleadings that his proposal was not accepted by the Testator who did not execute the necessary processes to transfer any interest in the subject land to the Plaintiff. The Defendant therefore denied the Plaintiff’s claim to any interest in the subject land. 11. It was the case of the Defendant that it became the beneficial owner of the Lease upon the death of the Testator and the grant of probate by the High Court, Accra on 20th November 2006. It was the further case of the Defendant that in its capacity as the beneficial owner of the Lease it had exercised exclusive, public and unchallenged acts of ownership which were known to and recognized by the Plaintiff in well documented statements, actions and conduct of the Plaintiff. 12. Amongst others the Defendant stated that in a previous action it instituted on 12th October 2008 against the Plaintiff herein as Defendant in Suit No. AL 13/2009 to recover possession of plots number 6 and 7, the Plaintiff herein acknowledged the Defendant’s interest in plots number 6 and 7 and as a result Terms of Settlement were subsequently filed and adopted __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 3 of 46 by the Supreme Court as Consent Judgment on 12th November 2014 which is binding on the Parties. 13. The Defendant added that before the parties executed the Terms of Settlement which was adopted by the Supreme Court as Consent Judgment on 12th November 2014, the Plaintiff was given notice of another action instituted by the Defendant herein as Plaintiff on 18th May 2010 in Suit No. FAL 214/10 in which the Defendant herein as Plaintiff contested the expunction of the Lease and allocation of plot number 3 to another. The Defendant stated that on 26th June 2019 judgment was delivered in Suit No. FAL 214/10, in its favour restoring the Lease and the Defendant’s interest in same. 14. It was therefore the case of the Defendant that by the existing judgments which are binding on Plaintiff, by his acts, omissions and statements, the Plaintiff has acknowledged the interest of the Defendant in and ownership of the subject land, plots number 2 and 3. 15. It was the further case of the Defendant that the Plaintiff’s knowledge of Suit No. FAL 214/10 and its outcome as well as the Consent Judgment adopted by the Supreme Court on 12th November 2014, hereafter also referred to as “Consent Judgment” preclude the Plaintiff from further litigation in respect of the Lease which covers plots number 6 and 7, as well as plots number 2 and 3. 16. For the reasons summarized in paragraph 15 and 16 above, the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff’s action was without merit, frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of the process of the Court and for these reasons same should be dismissed. PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 4 of 46 17. Pending the final determination of the suit, the Plaintiff filed an application on 23rd November 2022, pursuant to Order 25 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) and seeking an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the Defendant, its agents, servants, assigns, privies and/ any person(s) howsoever called from entering, staying on and/ or carrying out any development of, and/ or further developing plots number 2 and 3 situate at the Airport Commercial Centre, Accra. 18. On 19th December 2022, the Defendant filed an affidavit in opposition to the application. DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S SUIT TO BE DISMISSED SUMMARILY PURSUANT TO OREDR 11 RULE 18 (1)(b) AND (d) OF C.I. 47. 19. On 24th November 2022 the Defendant filed an application pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18 (1)(b) and (d) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I.47), seeking an order for pleadings contained in the Statement of Claim to be struck out and for the suit to be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process of Court. 20. The Plaintiff opposed the Defendant’s application for his suit to be dismissed and filed an affidavit in opposition to the Defendant’s application on 12th December 2022. The Plaintiff also filed a Reply to the Defendant’s Statement of Defence on the same day, 12th December 2022. In his Reply and in his affidavit in opposition, the Plaintiff stated amongst others that he did not know that in the actions instituted in respect of plots number 6 and 7, the Defendant was asserting ownership to plots number 2 and 3. 21. In view of the nature of the Defendant’s application filed on 24th November 2022, the Court considered same first even though the Plaintiff had first filed an application for interlocutory injunction on 23rd November 2022. In determining the Defendant’s application for the Plaintiff’s suit to be dismissed as an abuse of process of Court __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 5 of 46 pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b) and (d) of C.I. 47, this Court considered the pleadings, affidavits in support of and in opposition to the application, the exhibits relied on by the Parties and attached to their respective affidavits and the written legal submissions filed by Counsel for the Defendant. Counsel for Plaintiff did not file written legal submissions within the time the Court directed that same should be filed or at all. RULING OF THIS COURT DATED 4TH MAY 2023 22. In a Ruling delivered by this Court on 4th May 2023, the Court noted and stated that in applications filed pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b) and (d) of C.I. 47, the Court has jurisdiction to consider exhibits relied on by the Parties in support of the application. 23. This Court also found and stated at page 33 of the Ruling that on the basis of the affidavit evidence, the Plaintiff knew of the adverse claim made by the Defendant in respect of plots number 2 and 3 and the Plaintiff had acknowledged and admitted the Defendant’s interest in and ownership of the subject land. 24. At pages 34 and 35 of its Ruling delivered on 4th May 2023, this Court further found and held that the Plaintiff by his statements, acts and omissions, intentionally or deliberately caused or permitted the Defendant to believe that he had no interest in plots number 2 and 3 and the Defendant had acted upon that belief in the suits it instituted as beneficiary owner of the interest in the unexpired term of the Lease and in the publications made asserting ownership of the Lease. This Court therefore found and stated that the truth of the ownership of the Defendant in plots number 2 and 3 covered by the Lease had also been determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction in Suit No. FAL 214/ 10. __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 6 of 46 25. Relying on section 26 of the Evidence Act,1975 (NRCD 323) and after consideration of the entire matter, this Court held that the Defendant’s interest in and ownership of plots number 2 and 3 is therefore conclusively presumed against the Plaintiff or his successors in interest in any proceedings between the Parties or their successors in interest. 26. This Court found that that the suit was a clear case in which Order 11 Rule 18 (1) (b) and (d) of C.I. 47 is applicable, dismissed same and awarded cost of GHS 25,000 against the Plaintiff. IMPLICATION OF THE RULING OF 4TH MAY 2023 27. In dismissing the Plaintiff’s suit: i. this Court also dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for interlocutory injunction filed on 23rd November 2022. ii. this Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim to the reliefs sought and indorsed on the Writ of Summons which included a declaration of title to the subject land and an order of perpetual injunction. iii. the Court acknowledged the Defendant’s interest in and ownership of plots number 2 and 3 which is covered by one and the same Lease which also covers plots number 6 and 7. iv. The Court held that the Plaintiff is estopped from denying the Defendant’s interest in plots number 2, 3, 6 and 7. II. NOTICE OF APPEAL __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 7 of 46 28. Aggrieved by the Ruling of this Court dated 4th May 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on 30th May 2023 which was subsequently amended on 19th April 2024 with leave of Court. The basis of the Plaintiff’s appeal is essentially that in considering the exhibits relied on by the Parties in support of and in opposition to the application filed by the Defendant on 24th November 2022 pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18 (1)(b)and (d) of C.I.47, seeking an order for pleadings contained in the Statement of Claim to be struck out and for the suit to be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process of Court, this Court considered “extrinsic evidence” and the Court had no jurisdiction to consider same when its inherent jurisdiction had not been invoked. 29. By the Appeal, the Plaintiff seeks the Court of Appeal to amongst others, set aside the Ruling of this Court dated 4th May 2023 as same was given without jurisdiction. III. THE INSTANT APPLICATION 30. On 16th May 2024, Counsel for the Plaintiff filed the instant application. The application is stated to be filed pursuant to Order 25 of C.I. 47 and the Plaintiff/Applicant, hereafter referred to simply as “Plaintiff” by the instant application seeks an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain or as stated by his Counsel in the Statement of Case attached to the application, “stay the hand” of the Defendant/Respondent, hereafter referred to simply as “Defendant” pending the hearing of the Plaintiff’s appeal. 31. On 29th May 2024, Counsel for Defendant filed an affidavit in opposition to this application. IV. ISSUE RAISED FOR DETERMINATION __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 8 of 46 32. The issue raised for determination by the instant application is whether or not an order of interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrain the Defendant from interfering with the subject land pending the final determination of the Appeal filed by the Plaintiff. V. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO CONSIDER THE INSTANT APPLICATION FILED AFTER THE NOTICE OF APPEAL 33. In view of the fact that the substantive suit has been dismissed and also that a Notice of Appeal has been filed, the Court has considered whether or not it has jurisdiction to consider the instant application, noting especially that Rule 21 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C.I. 19) as amended provides that: “After the record of appeal has been transmitted from the court below to the Court, the Court shall be seised of the whole of the proceedings as between the parties and every application shall be made to the Court and not to the court below, but any application may be filed in the court below for transmission to the Court.” 34. This Court has also considered that in explaining the application of Rule 21 of C.I. 19, in their Ruling delivered in the case of The Republic vs High Court (Land Division), Accra, Exparte: The Registered Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Ghana and Nana Oteng Korankye as interested Party [Unreported, Civil Motion No. J5/56/2023, in their Ruling dated 28th June, 2023], the Supreme Court speaking through His Lordship Asiedu JSC referred to Rule 21 of C.I. 19 and to the previous decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Republic vs. High Court (Human Rights Division) Accra; Ex parte Akita (Mancell-Egala & Attorney-General Interested Parties) [2010] SCGLR 374 and explained that the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to consider interlocutory applications filed after a Notice of Appeal has been filed, provided that the Record of Appeal has not transmitted to the Court of Appeal. __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 9 of 46 35. In the case of The Republic vs High Court (Land Division), Accra, Exparte: The Registered Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Ghana and Nana Oteng Korankye as interested Party (supra), the Supreme Court was emphatic that it is well settled that once the Record of Appeal is transmitted or Civil Form 6 has been served, the trial High Court no longer has jurisdiction over the case. The Supreme Court added that “The issuance of Civil Form 6 serves various purposes: First, it serves to inform the parties to the appeal of the dispatch of the Record of Appeal to the Appellate Court…Most important of all, the service of Form 6 marks the end of the jurisdiction of the trial Court over the case and the commencement of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.” 36. This Court noted that in the affidavit in support of the application, it is not stated whether or not Civil Form 6 has been issued and served on the Parties, no report of a search was attached to the affidavit in support of the application to indicate the status of the appeal filed and Counsel for the Plaintiff did not address the issue of the jurisdiction of this Court to consider the instant application in his legal arguments contained in the Statements of Case filed. 37. On 19th June 2024 when the application was to be heard, the Court drew the attention of Counsel for Plaintiff to this matter and enquired from Counsel for both parties whether or not Civil Form 6 had been issued. The matter was adjourned upon request by Counsel for Plaintiff who thereafter filed a search in the Court of Appeal on 20th June 2024. A copy of the report of the search received by this Court on 26th June 2024 indicates that Civil Form 6 has not yet been issued even though the Notice of Appeal was filed on 30th May 2023. 38. Relying on the report of the search filed by Counsel for Plaintiff and received by this Court, this Court finds that it has jurisdiction to consider the instant application. __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 10 of 46 VI. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO CONSIDER THE INSTANT APPLICATION IN VIEW OF THE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT DATED 16TH MARCH 2022 39. In opposing the instant application, it is stated in the Defendant’s affidavit in opposition as well as in paragraph 23 of the attached Statement of Case that there is a Ruling of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Most Rev. Dr. Robert Aboagye Mensah and 3 others vs Yaw Boakye, (Civil Motion No. J7/05/2022) dated 16th March 2022 in which the Supreme Court has prohibited the parties from re- litigating any of the matters already settled by the Consent Judgment. 40. A copy of the Ruling of the Supreme Court dated 16th March 2022 delivered in the case of Most Rev. Dr. Robert Aboagye Mensah and 3 others vs Yaw Boakye, (Civil Motion No. J7/05/2022) referred to and relied on by Counsel for Defendant in his Statement of Case was filed in Court on 29th May 2024 as one of the authorities the Defendant’s Counsel intends to rely on in opposing the Plaintiff’s application. 41. A copy of the Consent Judgment referred to by Counsel for the Defendant is also attached to the Defendant’s affidavit in opposition as Exhibit EL 6. 42. This Court is of the considered opinion that if it is indeed the case that the issue raised by the instant application is one which has already been settled by the Consent Judgment adopted by the Supreme Court, then this Court has no jurisdiction to grant the instant application especially when the Supreme Court has expressly prohibited this. 43. The Court notes that although Counsel for Plaintiff addressed the issue related to the jurisdiction of this Court in respect of whether or not Civil Form 6 had been issued __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 11 of 46 after the Court directed his attention to it, in submissions by Counsel for Plaintiff in Court on 27th June 2024, Counsel for Plaintiff did not address this matter of prohibition by the Supreme Court, which is another matter that goes to the jurisdiction of this Court to consider the instant application. 44. The Court finds from Exhibit EL 6 that the title of the Suit in respect of which the Consent Judgment was adopted by the Supreme Court is Most Rev. Dr Robert Aboagye Mensah and three others vrs Yaw Boakye. The Defendant herein is the fourth Plaintiff in the suit. The Parties herein were therefore Parties to the Terms of Settlement adopted by the Supreme Court as Consent Judgment. 45. Amongst the agreements reached, it is stated in Exhibit EL 6 that the Plaintiffs, for that matter the Defendant herein and others will execute a sublease in favour of the Defendant, the Plaintiff herein. The Court notes that by this agreement, the Plaintiff herein acknowledged the beneficial interest in and ownership of the Defendant herein in the land in respect of which the Terms of Settlement was filed and which was adopted as Consent Judgment. The Court however notes that the parcel(s) of land which was the subject matter of the Terms of Settlement filed by the Parties and adopted as Consent Judgment is not specifically stated. 46. In paragraph 15 of the Defendant’s affidavit in opposition to the instant application, it stated that the Consent Judgment, attached as Exhibit EL 6 which bears Suit No. J8/6/2014, emanates from Suit No. AL/13/2009. The Plaintiff did not deny this claim made by the Defendant. 47. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit in opposition, it is stated that at the hearing of the application, Counsel for the Defendant shall seek leave of Court to __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 12 of 46 refer to the processes so far filed in the case. To ascertain the identity of the land which formed the basis of the Consent Judgment, attached as Exhibit EL 6, the Court therefore referred to the processes so far filed by the Defendant and on record and found that in the affidavit in support of the Defendant’s application for an Order to strike out the Plaintiff’s suit, filed pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b) and (d) of C.I. 47, and in this Court on 24th November 2022, the Defendant stated in paragraphs 15-17 of the affidavit in support of that application that Suit No. AL 13/2009 was instituted by the Defendant herein and three others, executors of the Testator, as Plaintiffs, against the Plaintiff herein as Defendant for recovery of plots number 6 and 7. It is also stated that the Consent Judgment entered by the Supreme Court compromised the Judgment of the Court of Appeal which reversed the ruling of the High Court in Suit No. AL 13/2009 dismissing the action. 48. This Court therefore finds that the parcels of land which are the subject of the Consent Judgment are plots number 6 and 7. 49. In the Ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Most Rev. Dr. Robert Aboagye Mensah and 3 others vs Yaw Boakye, (Civil Motion No. J7/05/2022) dated 16th March 2022, relied on by Counsel for Defendant, this Court finds that as submitted by Counsel for the Defendant, the Supreme Court indeed prohibited the parties to that suit who are Parties to this suit from re-litigating any of the matters already settled by the Consent Judgment. At page 16 of the Judgment, the Supreme Court ordered that the Applicant, the Plaintiff herein: “is hereby restrained from filing any further processes to frustrate the execution of the consent judgment in this Court or any other court without first obtaining the leave of this Court.” (Emphasis added) 50. This Court is of the considered opinion that by itself, the Consent Judgment relates to plots number 6 and 7 and the prohibition of the Supreme Court is thus in respect of __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 13 of 46 processes filed to frustrate the execution of the Consent Judgment which relates to plots number 6 and 7. 51. The Court has however considered that in the substantive action that was before this Court, the Parties herein agreed by their pleadings that plots number 6 and 7 are covered by the same lease as plots number 2 and 3 and in its Ruling dated 4th May 2023 this Court found and held after considering the entire case of the parties as presented before the Court, that in recognizing the Defendant’s interest in and ownership of plots number 6 and 7 of the Lease, the Plaintiff recognized the Defendant’s interest in and ownership of plots number 2 and 3. 52. The Court therefore finds that whilst the Consent Judgment relates to plots number 6 and 7, the findings of this Court contained in its Ruling of 4th May 2023 may have the effect of extending the prohibition of the Supreme Court contained in its Ruling of 16th March 2022 to cover processes filed by the Plaintiff in respect of plots number 2 and 3 which are also covered by the Lease which is the subject of the Consent Judgment. 53. Counsel for the Defendant appears to have acknowledged this implication of the Ruling of 4th May 2023 when he submitted in paragraph 23 of his Statement of Case that the grant of the present application will amount to re-opening matters already resolved by the Consent Judgment. 54. As the matters considered by this Court in arriving at the decision contained in the Ruling dated 4th May 2023 is the subject of the Plaintiff’s appeal, to maintain that the Plaintiff is prohibited from filing processes in respect of plots number 2 and 3 may well amount to making statements prejudicial to the fair hearing of the pending appeal. In the case of Dzokoto & Amissah v BBC Industrials Co (Ghana) Ltd and City Express Bus Services Ltd [2011] 2 SCGLR 825, the Supreme Court cautioned at page 829 of the Report that in determining an application for stay of execution, care must be taken not to determine any issue that might prejudice the substantive appeal. This __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 14 of 46 Court considers that the caution by the Supreme Court in Dzokoto & Amissah v BBC Industrials Co (Ghana) Ltd and City Express Bus Services Ltd (supra) is applicable not only to determination of applications for stay of execution, but interlocutory applications filed after a Notice of Appeal such as the instant application. 55. In view of the pending appeal and the above stated authority this Court will refrain from making conclusive pronouncements as to whether or not the present application in respect of plots number 2 and 3, is a process which would amount to an interference with the execution of the Consent Judgment which is in respect of plots number 6 and 7 and for that matter, that the Plaintiff is prohibited from filing same. 56. For the above stated reasons, this Court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the present application. VII. ANALYSIS AND OPINION PURPOSE OF THE INSTANT APPLICATION 57. It is the case of the Plaintiff as stated in paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support of the instant application that it is important for the Court to grant the instant application to hold the balance evenly between the Parties pending the determination of the Appeal. 58. The Court considers that paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support of the application is a statement of the purpose of interim or interlocutory applications as explained by the Supreme Court in cases such as Odonkor v. Amartei [1987-1988] 1 GLR 578 at page 581, in which the Supreme Court explained that: “The purpose of interim orders is as much as possible to hold the balance evenly between the parties pending a final resolution of matters in difference between them __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 15 of 46 and also to ensure that at the end of the day the successful party does not find that this victory is an empty one that brought him more problems than blessing”. (Emphasis added) 59. In paragraphs 5 and 19 of the affidavit in opposition, the Defendant disagrees with the intended purpose of the instant application and states that the instant application demonstrates the Plaintiff’s intent to continue to abuse the processes of the Court and to indirectly review, vary or suspend decisions of the Court. In determining whether or not to grant the instant application, this Court will also consider whether or not the instant application demonstrates an intent by the Plaintiff to continue to abuse the processes of the Court. 60. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit in support of the instant application, the Plaintiff stated that Counsel for the Plaintiff will seek leave to refer to all processes filed in this matter as if same has been sworn to and reproduced. The Court has therefore considered the application for interlocutory injunction filed by the Plaintiff on 23rd November 2022 in the substantive case and finds that as stated in paragraph 17 above, the Plaintiff’s application for interlocutory injunction filed on 23rd November 2022 was stated to have been filed pursuant to Order 25 Rule 1 of C.I. 47 just as the instant application. 61. As explained by the Supreme Court in Odonkor v Amartei (supra) this Court finds that the purpose of the application for the interlocutory injunction filed by the Plaintiff on 23rd November 2022 in the substantive case, is the same as the stated purpose of the instant application. To this end, the application filed on 23rd November 2022 as stated in paragraph 17 above sought just as the instant application seeks an Order of this Court to restrain the Defendant from interfering with the subject land pending the final determination of the issues raised between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 16 of 46 62. It is the considered opinion of the Court after considering both applications for interlocutory injunction filed by the Plaintiff and referred to in paragraph 60 above that the instant application is essentially a repetition of the Plaintiff’s application filed on 23rd November 2022. 63. The Court therefore finds that although not expressly stated, the instant application is one which in essence seeks an Order of this Court to either vary or vacate its previous Ruling of 4th May 2023, which had the effect of dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim to an Order for perpetual injunction and the Plaintiff’s application for interlocutory injunction filed on 23rd November 2022, for the Court considers that a decision different from its Ruling of 4th May 2023 on the basis of an application similar to that filed on 23rd November 2022 and dismissed, will essentially amount to varying or vacating its previous Ruling bearing in mind the implications of that Ruling stated in paragraph 27 above. The Court has also considered that as the basis of the instant application are similar facts, it can arrive at a decision different from that already given if it considers that the Ruling of 4th May 2023 is one that may lawfully be varied or vacated. 64. This Court has therefore considered the authorities in respect of the circumstances in which it may vary or vacate its own previous Order or Ruling. INHERENT JURISDICTION TO SET ASIDE RULING OF 4TH MAY 2023 IF MADE WITHOUT JURISDICTION 65. In Ghassoub vs. Dizengoff [1962] 2 GLR 1331, SC and in the case of Mosi vs. Bagyina [1963] 1 GLR 337, the Supreme Court held that it is trite learning that where a judgment or an Order is void either because it was given or “made without jurisdiction” or because it is not warranted by any law or Rule or procedure, the party affected is entitled ex debitio justitiae to have it set aside and the Court or Judge is under __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 17 of 46 a legal obligation to set it aside, either suo moto or on an application of the party affected. No judicial discretion arises here. (Emphasis added) 66. This Court therefore finds relying on the cases of Ghassoub vs Dizzengoff (supra) and Mosi vs Bagyina (supra) that if its Ruling of 4th May 2023 was made without jurisdiction, then it has a legal obligation to set same aside and that will also have the effect of setting aside the order dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for Interlocutory injunction and relief for perpetual injunction sought in the substantive suit. 67. Whilst the Plaintiff does not expressly make the case that by the instant application this Court should set aside its Ruling of 4th May 2023 because same is void for lack of jurisdiction, it is the Plaintiff’s case as stated in the affidavit in support of the instant application that his appeal is likely to succeed because this Court had “no jurisdiction” to consider extrinsic evidence in determining the application filed by the Defendant pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18 (1) (b) and (d) of C.I. 47 when its inherent jurisdiction had not been invoked. The legal arguments contained in the Statement of case filed by Counsel for Plaintiff were also essentially on the lack of jurisdiction of this Court in determining the Defendant’s application filed in the substantive case. 68. In his submission in Court on 27th June 2024, Counsel for the Plaintiff rehashed the Plaintiff’s case as stated in the affidavit in support of the instant application. In support of the Plaintiff’s case, Counsel for Plaintiff referred to and relied on “Halsbury’s Laws of England Vol. 37 under the heading Stay under inherent jurisdiction in general”, the case of Gbenartey and Glie v Netas Properties and Investments and also the case of Adam vrs Nuamah [2017-2020] SCGLR 43. Counsel for Plaintiff added that “there is no authority which enables the Court to take into consideration evidence outside the pleadings in the manner in which was done in this Court, when the inherent jurisdiction of the Court had not been invoked.” __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 18 of 46 69. In its affidavit in opposition, the Defendant stated that the Court had jurisdiction to consider its application as it did. In his submission in Court on 27th June 2024, Counsel for the Defendant disagreed with the submissions by Counsel for Plaintiff and stated that the cases relied on by Counsel for Plaintiff in support of the Plaintiff’s case that this Court had no jurisdiction to consider evidence relied on by the Parties in determining the Defendant’s application filed pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b) and (d) of C.I. 47 are not applicable. Counsel for Defendant also stated that the section of Halsbury’s Law of England relied on by Counsel for Plaintiff has no bearing on the matter before the Court. 70. Counsel for Defendant referred to his Statement of Case and stated that the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Eastern Alloys Company Ltd, vs Silver Star Auto Ltd (Unreported; Suit No. H1/01/2016; dated 14th July 2016) which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Eastern Alloys Company Ltd v Silver Star Auto Ltd [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 611 as stated in its Statement of Case is what is applicable. Counsel for the Defendant maintained that this Court had jurisdiction to consider evidence as it did and the Ruling of the Court dated 4th May 2023 is being challenged on appeal only for collateral reasons. 71. Should this Court vary or vacate its Ruling of 4th May 2023 on grounds that it had no jurisdiction to make same in view of the Plaintiff’s challenge to its jurisdiction and the instant repeat application? 72. As stated in paragraph 22 above, in its Ruling of 4th May 2023, a copy of which is attached by the Defendant to his affidavit in opposition as Exhibit EL 3 this Court stated at page 17 of the Ruling and under the heading “What may be considered” in an application filed by the Defendant pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18 (1)(b) and (d) of C.I. 47 that by Order 11 Rule 18 (2) of C.I. 47 and from the explanation given by the Supreme Court in __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 19 of 46 the case of Okofoh Estates Ltd vrs Modern Signs Ltd and another [1995-96] SCGLR, 310 the pleadings, the affidavits as well as the exhibits relied on by the Parties could be considered in an application filed pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b) and (d) of C.I. 47 as had been filed by the Defendant. 73. In the case of Okofoh Estates Ltd vs Modern Signs Ltd & Another [1996-1997] SCGLR, 224 also reported as Okofoh Estates Ltd vs Modern Signs Ltd & Another [1995-96] GLR 310, the Supreme Court was called upon to consider an application to strike out pleadings for disclosing no cause of action. The application had been made under the previous Rules of Court, High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (LN 140 A), specifically Order 25 Rule 4. The Supreme Court therefore noted and held as reported in holding 4 at page 313 of the report, that “the purpose of Order 25, r 4 of LN 140A” was the prevention of claims which “on the face of the pleadings disclosed no cause of action” or prevention of claims which “was shown to be frivolous or vexatious”. 74. In the case of Okofoh Estates Ltd vs Modern Signs Ltd & Another (supra), the Supreme Court also noted and stated as reported in holding 4 at page 313 of the Report that in the case presented before the Court: “.. the respondent’s application was “to dismiss the suit for non-disclosure of cause of action” but did not ask the court to dismiss the action for being an abuse of the process of the court and furthermore, in the supporting affidavit an abuse of the process was neither alleged nor showed, it was apparent on the face of the application that it was made under Order 25 rule 4 of LN 140A. …Accordingly, the High Court erred in taking extrinsic evidence into account.” (Emphasis added) 75. The Supreme Court therefore referred to the explanation of the application of the Rules in Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th ed), Vol. 37 at paras 432 (under the heading “Striking out pleadings disclosing no reasonable cause of action or defence”, and para 435 (under __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 20 of 46 the heading “striking out under the court’s inherent jurisdiction”) (Emphasis added) and stated that: “…if the application is based only on the ground that the pleading or indorsement does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, no evidence is admissible.” (Emphasis added) 72. As no evidence is admissible in an application based only on the ground that the pleading or indorsement does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, the Supreme Court advised at page 327 of the report per Akuffo JSC (as she then was) in Okofoh Estates Ltd v Modern Signs Ltd(supra) that: “…it is good practice and sound sense to expressly invoke in the motion the other powers contained in the rules of court and the court’s inherent jurisdiction.” See also Okofoh Estates Ltd v Modern Signs Ltd and Another [1996-97] SCGLR, 224 at page 238. 76. The understanding of this Court of the explanation and decision of the Supreme Court in Okofoh Estates Ltd vs Modern Signs Ltd & Another (supra) as stated in its Ruling of 4th May 2023 was therefore that whilst in applications seeking an Order of the Court to dismiss a suit based only on the ground that the pleading or indorsement does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, no evidence is admissible, in applications made pursuant to the other Rules of Court or filed specifically for a Court to strike out pleadings and dismiss the action to prevent abuse of its procedure by frivolous or vexatious proceedings by summary means, as was done by the Defendant in this case “the pleadings, affidavits and extrinsic evidence” may be taken into account. __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 21 of 46 77. This understanding of the Court was also informed by Order 11 Rule 18(2) of C.I. 47 which expressly prohibits a Court from considering evidence in determining applications made pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18(1)(a) of C.I. 47, on the ground that the pleading or indorsement does not disclose a reasonable cause of action. This Court therefore stated, referred to and relied on Order 11 Rule 18(2) of C.I. 47 in its Ruling of 4th May 2023. 78. This Court is therefore of the respectful and considered opinion that on the basis of the authorities and the applicable Rules of Court relied on and stated in its Ruling of 4th May 2023 it had jurisdiction to consider the pleadings, affidavits and exhibits relied on by the Parties in determining the Defendant’s application filed pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b) and (d) of C.I. 47. 79. In further support of its view that it had jurisdiction to consider evidence relied on by the Parties in determining the Defendant’s application filed pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b) and (d) of C.I. 47, for the purpose of the instant application, this Court adds that in the Supreme Court Practice, 1999 Vol. 1 (White Book) at page 348, in paragraphs 18/19/5, the learned authors in explaining applications made pursuant to Order 18 Rule 19 of the English Rules which is an exact replica of Order 11 Rule 18 of C.I. 47 state as follows: “Where the only ground on which the application is made is that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, no evidence is admitted. Attorney General of the Duchy of Lancaster v. L. & N.W.Ry [1892] 3 Ch. 278; Republic of Peru v Peruvian Guanco Co. (1887) 36 Ch.D. 489 at 498: and where the only ground on which the statement of claim can be said to disclose no reasonable cause of action is that the action is unlikely to succeed, affidavit evidence is equally inadmissible. (Wenlock v Moloney [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1238; [1965] 2 ALL E.R. 871, C.A). __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 22 of 46 But in applications on any of the other grounds mentioned in the rule, or where the inherent jurisdiction of the court is invoked, affidavit evidence may be and ordinarily is used.” (Emphasis added) 80. As the Defendant’s application before the Court in the substantive case and in respect of which the Ruling of 4th May 2023 was delivered was an application on the other grounds in Order 11 Rule 18(1) of C.I 47 other than Order 11 Rule 18(1) (a) of C.I. 47, this Court finds that on the basis of the explanation given in the White Book in respect of the application of the Order 18 Rule 19 of the English Rules which is an exact replica of Order 11 rule 18 of C.I. 47, this Court had jurisdiction to consider evidence in the application made by the Defendant pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18 (1)(b) and (d) of C.I. 47. 81. More specifically, in the Supreme Court Practice, 1999 Vol. 1 (White Book) at page 352, in paragraphs 18/19/18, the learned authors in explaining applications made pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1)(d) of the English Rules which is an exact replica of Order 11 rule 18(1)(d) of C.I. 47 state under the heading “Abuse of the process of the Court” as follows: “Para (1)(d) confers upon the Court in express terms powers which the Court has hitherto exercised under its inherent jurisdiction where there appeared to be “an abuse of the process of the Court”. (Emphasis added) 82. The Court finds it rather surprising that Senior Counsel representing the Plaintiff chose to rely on the explanation given in Halsbury’s Law of England on “stay under inherent jurisdiction general” as the basis for his challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court to consider applications filed pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b) and (d) of C.I. 47. The Court finds that as stated by Counsel for Defendant in Court on 27th June 2024, by his own statement in Court, Counsel for Plaintiff admitted that the portion of Halsbury’s Law of England relied on is applicable to “stay”. __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 23 of 46 83. This Court is of the considered opinion that a careful reading and proper appreciation of the decided authorities on the application of Order 11 Rule 18 of C.I. 47 and upon true and proper interpretation of Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b)and (d) and Order 11 Rule 18(2) of C.I. 47, the Court had jurisdiction to consider evidence, affidavit or extrinsic evidence relied on by the Parties in determining the application filed by the Defendant pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18 (1) (b) and (d) of C.I. 47 as stated in its Ruling dated 4th May 2023. 84. In the case of Adam v Nuamah [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 36 relied on by Counsel for Plaintiff in his submissions before the Court on 27th June 2024, the grounds of the application filed by the applicant in the trial Court as stated by the Supreme Court at page 37 of the Report was that the suit should be dismissed “for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, frivolous and vexatious; and for being an abuse of the process of the Court”. 85. At page 42 of the report, the Supreme Court therefore held in the case of Adam v Nuamah (supra) referring to Wenlock v Maloney [1965] 2 All ER 871 that “where the application basically is made under Order 11, r 18 (1)(a) but grounds are added under the other subrules of Order 11, 18(1), namely (b),(c) and (d), evidence should not be admitted, the purpose of the rule being to prevent a trial on affidavits in order to determine whether there is a cause of action.” 86. The Rules of Court considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Adam v Nuamah (supra) were therefore clearly stated in the Report. This Court therefore finds that the case of Adam v Nuamah (supra) is clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the instant case filed pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b) and (d) only and Counsel for the Plaintiff who relied on Adam v Nuamah (supra) ought to have known this. __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 24 of 46 87. In the case of Gbenartey & Glie v Netas Properties & Investments & Others [2015- 2016] 1 SCGLR 605, also referred to and relied on by Counsel for the Plaintiff in his submissions before this Court on 27th June 2024, the application filed by the defendants/applicants as stated by the Supreme Court at page 615 of the Report, was simply filed pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18 (1) of C.I. 47 and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The Supreme Court also noted and stated that in the affidavit in support of the application, the defendants made reference to an earlier suit which had been discontinued without liberty to institute any fresh action and this “crucial statement of fact was however not part of their pleadings”. 88. In the substantive case that was before this Court and referred to by both Parties in their affidavit in support of and in opposition to the present application, the Defendant did not simply rely on Order 11 Rule 18(1) of C.I. 47. The Defendant specifically stated that its application was filed pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b) and (d) of C.I. 47. 89. Further, in the substantive case that was before this Court, the Defendant in its pleadings referred to cases in respect of which there are subsisting judgments binding on the Parties and these cases were further referred to in the affidavit in support of the application filed by the Defendant pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b) and (d) of C.I. 47 specifically. 90. This Court therefore finds that the case of Gbenartey & Glie v Netas Properties & Investments & Others (supra) relied on by Counsel for Plaintiff is also not applicable to a determination of the jurisdiction of this Court to have considered the application filed by the Defendant in the substantive case that was before this Court. 91. The Court agrees with the submissions by Counsel for the Defendant made in Court on 27th June 2024 and contained in his Statement of Case that the decision of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Alloys Company Ltd v Silver __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 25 of 46 Star Auto Ltd (supra), is more applicable to the issue of the jurisdiction of this Court to consider evidence including extrinsic evidence in determination of applications filed pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18 (1)(b) and (d) of C.I. 47. 92. This Court finds that in the case of Eastern Alloys Company Ltd v Silver Star Auto Ltd (supra), the application to dismiss the suit summarily was filed pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b) and (d) of C.I. 47 as was the application filed by the Defendant herein in the substantive case that was before this Court. 93. Further, in the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Eastern Alloys Company Ltd, vs Silver Star Auto Ltd(Unreported; Suit No. H1/01/2016; dated 14th July 2016), relied on by Counsel for the Defendant, the Court of Appeal held at page 3 of its Ruling referring to Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b) and (d) of C.I. 47 that: “By sub-rules 18(1)(b) and (d) under which the respondent moved the trial court, extrinsic evidence is permitted to demonstrate why the action is objectionable. The Court therefore looks at the evidence on record including pleadings, affidavits and exhibits filed in support of and in opposition to the application to arrive at its decision.” 94. The Court of Appeal concluded and held at page 8 of its Ruling that after consideration of the above-matters “There was adequate evidence on the record from which the trial court could conclude that …this amounts to piece-meal litigation and it would be an abuse of the processes of the court to allow this fresh action.” 95. Whilst a copy of this Ruling of the Court of Appeal in the case of Eastern Alloys Company Ltd, vs Silver Star Auto Ltd(Unreported; Suit No. H1/01/2016; dated 14th July 2016), relied on by Counsel for the Defendant was filed in Court as an authority __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 26 of 46 the Defendant Counsel intended to rely on and there is proof of service of same on Counsel for Plaintiff on record, Counsel for Plaintiff maintained that his appeal to the Court of Appeal raising an issue similar to that already determined by the Court of Appeal has a good chance of success. 96. The Court also finds from the case of Eastern Alloys Company Ltd v Silver Star Auto Ltd [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 611 that aggrieved by the Ruling of the Court of appeal affirming the decision of the Trial Court striking out the suit instituted by the appellant, the appellant filed a further appeal to the Supreme Court. Two of the four grounds of appeal relied on by the appellant before the Supreme Court as stated in the case of Eastern Alloys Company Ltd v Silver Star Auto Ltd[2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 611 at page 614 were that: (i) The judgment is against the weight of the pleadings and the affidavit evidence adduced; (ii) The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the case of the appellant constitutes piecemeal litigation and abuse of the process of court. (Emphasis added) 97. From the appellant’s grounds of appeal before the Supreme Court, this Court therefore considers that the further appeal to the Supreme Court challenged the basis of the decision of Court of Appeal, and for that matter the evidence considered, and weight attached to same by the Court of Appeal in arriving at its conclusion that the appellant’s case constituted an abuse of the process of court. __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 27 of 46 98. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that as submitted by Counsel for the Defendant, the decision of the Supreme Court in Eastern Alloys Company Ltd v Silver Star Auto Ltd (supra) which affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal was an affirmation of the kind of evidence stated and relied on by the Court of Appeal in arriving at its decision. 99. This Court also finds that at page 614 and 615 of the Report, the Supreme Court speaking through Sophia Adinyira JSC (as she then was) stated in the case of Eastern Alloys Company Ltd v Silver Star Auto Ltd (supra) that, after consideration of the grounds of appeal, on the facts and after consideration of the submissions by the parties, “the main issue of contention” raised by the appeal or “the issue that stands out for consideration is whether the appellant’s action is an abuse of court process…” 100. Thus, at page 615 of the report, the Supreme Court explained the procedural rule stated in Order 11 rule 18(1)(d) of C.I. 47 as follows: “The procedural rule stated in Order 11 r 18(1)(d) above, is grounded in the broader doctrine of abuse of process, commonly referred to as the rule in Henderson v Henderson (1843) Hare 100, which requires the parties when a matter becomes the subject of litigation between them in court of competent jurisdiction to bring their whole case before the court so that all aspects of it may be finally decided (subject, of course, to any appeal) once and for all. …It is a rule of public policy based on the desirability, in the general interest as well as that of the parties themselves, that litigation should not drag on forever and that a defendant should not be oppressed by successive suits when one would do. That is the abuse at which the rule is directed.” (Emphasis added) 101. This Court is therefore of the respectful opinion that in explaining the kind of abuse at which Order 11 Rule 18(1)(d) of C.I. 47 is directed, in stating that the Rule requires the parties to bring their whole case, the Supreme Court acknowledged although not expressly stated, as held by the Court of Appeal, in determination of applications filed __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 28 of 46 under Order 11 rule 18(1)(d) of C.I. 47, “the whole case” of the applicant as stated in the pleadings, affidavits, exhibits relied on and or extrinsic evidence is admissible. 102. For the reason stated in paragraph 101 above, this Court disagrees with Counsel for the Plaintiff that extrinsic evidence cannot be considered in applications filed pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18(1)(d) of C.I. 47. To agree with Counsel for Plaintiff on this matter would be to suggest that whilst the Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Alloys Company Ltd v Silver Star Auto Ltd (supra), expressly stated that an applicant is required to bring his/ her whole case in an application filed pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18 (1)(d) of C.I. 47, so that all aspects of the case can be determined, the Supreme Court is also to be understood to have stated or meant that if the whole case of the applicant includes affidavit and/ or extrinsic evidence then same is not permitted, or that, the whole case of an applicant can only be considered when the inherent jurisdiction of the Court is also invoked, especially when the Supreme Court made no reference to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. 103. This Court also finds that the decision of the Supreme Court in Eastern Alloys Company Ltd v Silver Star Auto Ltd (supra) and the explanation of the application of Order 11 Rule 18(1)(d) of C.I. 47 given by the Supreme Court is more consistent with the explanation of the application of Order 11 Rule 18(1)(d) of C.I. 47 as contained in the Supreme Court Practice, 1999 Vol. 1 (White Book) at page 352 in paragraphs 18/19/18, in which the learned authors explain, as stated in paragraph 81 above that: “Para (1)(d) confers upon the Court in express terms powers which the Court has hitherto exercised under its inherent jurisdiction where there appeared to be “an abuse of the process of the Court”. (Emphasis added) 104. After careful reading of the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Alloys Company Ltd v Silver Star Auto Ltd (supra), considering __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 29 of 46 especially the grounds of appeal raised before the Supreme Court, the explanation provided by the Supreme Court of the kind of abuse which Order 11 Rule 18(1)(d) of C.I. 47 is directed at, and the explanation of the application of the Rule provided in the White Book and referred to above, this Court is not convinced by the submissions by Counsel for Plaintiff that in applications filed pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b) and (d) of C.I. 47 extrinsic evidence can be considered only where the inherent jurisdiction of the Court is invoked. 105. This Court is of the respectful opinion that in the case of Eastern Alloys Company Ltd v Silver Star Auto Ltd (supra), the Supreme Court considered the issue of abuse of court process pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18(1)(d) of C.I. 47, stated that an applicant is required to bring his whole case in an application pursuant to that Rule and suggested that a Court can consider the entire case even when the inherent jurisdiction had not been invoked, when it unanimously dismissed the appeal. 106. It is for the reasons stated in paragraphs 96 to 105 above that this Court agrees with the submission by Counsel for Defendant in Court on 27th June 2024 and stated in paragraph 14 of his Statement of Case that the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal and the dictum of the Court of Appeal on what may be considered in applications filed pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18(1)(d) of C.I. 47. 107. For all the reasons stated in paragraphs 92– 105 above, this Court does not consider that its Ruling of 4th May 2023 was made without jurisdiction and the Court cannot set same aside on grounds that it was “made without jurisdiction” a Court can set aside its own Orders. 108. As stated in paragraphs 28 and 29 above, this Court acknowledges that there is a pending Appeal filed by the Plaintiff for a determination of whether or not this Court __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 30 of 46 had jurisdiction to consider the Defendant’s application as it did and as stated in its Ruling delivered on 4th May 2023. 109. This Court also acknowledges that it must refrain from pronouncements that may prejudice the pending appeal. The issue of the jurisdiction of this Court discussed in paragraphs 65-107 above is only intended to address the issue stated in paragraph 71 above and raised by the instant repeat application for interlocutory injunction and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ghassoub vs. Dizengoff (supra) and in the case of Mosi vs. Bagyina (supra) which requires that a Court must vacate its own previous decision as void, if the said decision was made without jurisdiction and no discretion arises. 110. A determination of the jurisdiction of this Court to consider the evidence it relied on in arriving at the decision contained in its Ruling of 4th May 2023 is a matter that would finally be determined by the Plaintiff’s Appeal. 111. For all the purpose of the instant application however, this Court finds that there is no basis for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to grant a repeat application which in essence will amount to varying or vacating its Ruling of 4th May 2023. INHERENT JURISDICTION TO VARY/ VACATE RULING OF 4TH MAY 2023 IF MANDATORY PROVISION OF LAW OVERLOOKED 112. In the case of Attoh-Quarshie v. Okpote [1973] 1 GLR 59, the Court of Appeal held as reported in holding 2 at page 60 of the report that: “Where a Court in making a decision overlooks a certain mandatory provision of the law, it has the inherent power to vacate its own invalid Orders”. (Emphasis added) __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 31 of 46 113. This Court therefore has inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own Ruling of 4th May 2023 which dismissed the application for interlocutory injunction filed by the Plaintiff on 23rd November 2022 if it overlooked a mandatory provision of law in arriving at its decision. In this regard this Court has considered especially the Plaintiff’s application filed in the Supreme Court on 21st July 2023 and the Ruling of the Supreme Court dated 31st January 2024 attached to the Defendant’s affidavit in opposition to the instant application as Exhibit EL 1 and Exhibit EL 2 respectively. 114. The Court finds from Exhibit EL 1 that after its Ruling of 4th May 2023, the Plaintiff applied to the Supreme Court for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of this Court. The basis of the application was essentially that this Court overlooked a mandatory provision of the law when it delivered it Ruling without affording the Plaintiff an opportunity to be heard. 115. In a Ruling dated 31st January 2024 attached by the Defendant as Exhibit EL 2, the Supreme Court found and held that the Plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to be heard before the Ruling of this Court dated 4th May 2023 was delivered. For this reason, the Supreme Court refused the application filed by the Plaintiff herein seeking an order of Certiorari to quash the decision of this Court dated 4th May 2023. 116. In the instant application the Plaintiff has not made any case that this Court overlooked a mandatory provision of law when it considered the substantive case and delivered its Ruling of 4th May 2023. There is therefore no basis for this Court to vary or vacate its Ruling of 4th May 2023 on the ground that the Court overlooked a mandatory provision of law when it delivered that Ruling. __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 32 of 46 INHERENT JURISDICTION TO VARY / VACATE RULING OF 4TH MAY 2023 IF NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE ENDS OF JUSTICE IN THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE 117. In the case of Omaboe v. Kwame (1978) GLR 122 at page 124, the Court of Appeal held per Apaloo C.J. (as he then was), referring to Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd edition) Vol. 22 at page 785 that: “as a general rule, except by way of appeal, no Court, judge, or master has power to rehear, review, alter, or vary any judgment or order after it has been entered or drawn up, respectively, either in an application made in the original action or matter, or in a fresh action brought to review such judgment or order. The object of the rule is to bring litigation to a finality…” (Emphasis added) 118. The Court of Appeal however added in Omaboe v. Kwame (supra) that there are exceptions to the general rule against a Court rehearing and varying its orders or judgments. At page 125 of the report, the Court held that: “...a Court has inherent power to vary or set aside its own previous orders suo moto when the Court realizes that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would best be achieved by varying or vacating the order or that the existence of the order is no longer necessary to achieve the purpose for which the order was made.” (Emphasis added) 119. From the above- stated authority this Court finds that it also has inherent jurisdiction to vary or even vacate its Ruling of 4th May 2023 if the ends of justice would best be achieved by varying or vacating that Ruling. In all the circumstances of the instant case however, the Court does not find that the ends of justice would best be achieved by varying or vacating its Order of 4th May 2023. __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 33 of 46 APPLICATION CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO ORDER 25 OF C.I. 47. 120. As stated in paragraph 30 above, the present application is filed pursuant to Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47). 121. Order 25 Rule 1(2) of C.I. 47 provides that a party to a cause or matter may apply for the grant of an injunction before “or after the trial of the cause or matter”. 122. Order 25 Rule 1(1) of C.I. 47 further provides that: The Court may grant an injunction by an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the Court to be just or convenient to do so, and the order may be made either unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions as the Court considers just. (Emphasis added) 123. In the exercise of the discretion stated in Order 25 Rule 1 of C.I. 47 in determining whether or not to grant an application for interlocutory injunction, the matters to be considered by a trial Court are settled. SETTLED PRINCIPLES TO BE CONSIDERED BY A COURT IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT AN APPLICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 34 of 46 124. In their Ruling delivered on 13th April, 2022 in the case of Michael Ankomah- Nimfa vs James Gyakye Quayson & 2 Others (Unreported; Writ No. J1/11/2022, 13th April, 2022; SC), the Supreme Court speaking through His Lordship Kulendi JSC held that the factors or principles to be considered in determining whether or not to grant an application for interlocutory injunction are settled in a plethora of cases such as Owusu vs Owusu-Ansah [2007-2008] 2SCGLR, 870; Vanderpuye vs Nartey [1971] 1 GLR 428, CA; Lardan vs Attorney-General [1957] 3 WALR 55, Punjabi Bros vs Namih [1958] 3 WALR 381; American Cyanamid Co vs Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504; Poutney vs Doega [1987-88] 1 GLR 111(CA), Musicians Union of Ghana vs Abraham [1982-83] GLR 337 and Frimpong vs Nana Asare Obeng II [1974] 1 GLR 16. 125. The Supreme Court further held in Michael Ankomah- Nimfa vs James Gyakye Quayson & 2 Others (supra) that the principles to be considered in determining whether or not to grant an application for interlocutory injunction, which have long been settled, were reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of 18th July Limited vs. Yehans International Limited [2012] 1 SCGLR 167. 126. From the authorities stated in paragraphs 124 and 125 on the matter, this Court finds that the Supreme Court has provided the following as critical guidance in the exercise of the discretion as to whether or not to grant an application for interlocutory injunction: i. Whether or not an Applicant for an order of interlocutory injunction has demonstrated some legal or equitable interest which the Court is called upon to protect. __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 35 of 46 ii. Whether or not the case of the Applicant is not frivolous and vexatious and raises serious questions of law for which reason the order should be granted to protect the Applicants interest. iii. Whether or not on the balance of convenience, the Applicant has shown that he stands to suffer greater and irreparable damage as opposed to the Respondent, having regard to the acts or conduct of the Respondent, if the application is not granted. iv. The bonafides and malafides of the parties cannot be ignored in ascertaining whether to grant or refuse the application. 127. In paragraph 14 of the affidavit in opposition filed on 29th May 2024, it is stated that the Defendant is opposed to the instant application for the reason that the Plaintiff has failed to show any right to the subject property worthy of protection and capable of contradicting the findings of this Court in the Ruling of 4th May 2023. WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED SOME LEGAL OR EQUITABLE INTEREST WHICH THE COURT MUST PROTECT. 128. In the case of Owusu vs Owusu Ansah (supra) the Supreme Court speaking through Sophia Adinyira J.S.C (as she then was) stated that it is “imperative that any party who comes to court with an application for interlocutory injunction must first satisfy the court that he or she has a legal right that can be asserted at law or in equity.” 129. The Supreme Court thus held in Owusu vs Owusu Ansah (supra) that: __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 36 of 46 “The fundamental rule therefore is that a trial court should consider whether the applicant has a legal right at law or in equity, which the court ought to protect by granting an interlocutory injunction”. (Emphasis added) 130. In Michael Ankomah- Nimfa vs James Gyakye Quayson & 2 Others (supra), the Supreme Court referred to its previous decision in Owusu vs. Owusu-Ansah (supra) and reiterated that whether or not the Applicant has a legal right at law or in equity, which the Court ought to protect by maintaining the status quo until the final determination of the action on its merits can “only be determined by considering the pleadings and affidavit evidence before the court.” 131. In determining whether or not an order for interlocutory injunction should be granted pending the hearing of the appeal filed by the Plaintiff, this Court must therefore first ascertain whether or not the Plaintiff as Applicant has demonstrated that he has a legal or equitable right to be protected. In making this determination, only the pleadings and the affidavit evidence before the Court will be considered. 132. After careful consideration of the pleadings and affidavit evidence referred to and relied on by the Parties in their affidavit in support of and in opposition to the instant application, the Court is not satisfied that the Plaintiff has a legal or equitable right in the subject land which this Court is called upon to protect, especially in view of the Judgment in Suit No. FAL 214/10 dated 26th June 2018 and attached to the Defendant’s affidavit in opposition to the instant application as Exhibit EL 5. The Court therefore finds that it has no basis to further consider the instant application pursuant to Order 25 of C.I. 47. __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 37 of 46 APPLICATION TO STAY THE HANDS OF THE DEFENDANT PENDING THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL 133. In paragraph 1 of his written legal submissions/ Statement of Case filed in support of the instant application, Counsel for the Plaintiff stated that the instant application seeks to “stay the hands” of the Defendant pending the final determination of the appeal. 134. The Court finds that by this submission, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff Counsel acknowledge that the grant of the instant application will also operate as a stay of execution. For this reason, this Court has considered whether or not the instant application may be granted as an application for stay of execution. 135. In paragraph 20 of the affidavit in opposition to the instant application, the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of this Court’s discretion in his favour. The Defendant maintained that the instant application for injunction pending appeal is frivolous, a waste of the Court’s time and an anxious attempt by the Applicant to further vex the Defendant with frivolous and protracted litigation. STAY OF EXECUTION – DECISION NON-EXECUTORY 136. The Court notes that whilst the Ruling of 4th May 2023 may be regarded as non- executory, in the Ruling of the Supreme Court dated 28th April, 2020 in Ogyeadom Obranu Kwesi Atta VI v. Ghana Telecommunications Co. Ltd & Anor [Civil Motion No. J8/131/2019] reported as Ghana Telecommunications Co. Ltd & Another v Atta VI [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 1090 at page 1109, the Supreme Court stated at page 1094 of the report that: __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 38 of 46 “True, it is to say that there has been a collection of cases of this court which preclude the court from exercising its jurisdiction to grant stay of execution in cases which come before it in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction where the decision of the Court of Appeal made no executable orders as in the matter before us. However, in the case of NDK Financial Services Ltd v Yiadom Construction and Electrical Works [2007-2008] 1 SCGLR 93, the court granted an order of stay of execution of a non-executable order…The words of Brobbey JSC (as he then was) … at page 98 of the Report [is] as follows: In considering an application for stay, the court should endeavour to do substantial justice…” 137. In the case of Ghana Telecommunications Co. Ltd & Another v Atta VI (supra), the Supreme Court added at page 1098 of the Report that “The time has come for us to embrace a new approach …the view is reached that in appropriate cases, the ends of justice is better served even in cases where the judgment …is said to be merely executable.” 138. It is thus reported in holding 1 at page 1090 of the report that in the case of Ghana Telecommunications Co Ltd & Another v Atta VI (supra) the Supreme Court departed from its previous decisions that refused stay of execution of judgments of the Court of Appeal that were not executable. 139. The understanding of this Court of the decision in Ghana Telecommunications Co Ltd & Another v Atta VI (supra) is therefore that it has jurisdiction to consider an application for stay of execution even if the decision appealed against is merely executable or non-executable if the ends of justice will be better served in considering the application. __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 39 of 46 SETTLED PRINCIPLES – STAY OF EXECUTION 140. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Charles Osei Bonsu v. Dorothy Aboagye & Anor (2015) 81 GMJ 25, in its judgment delivered on 30th July 2014, the principles for considering an application for a stay of execution are well-settled. The Court referred to the cases of Livingstone Djokoto v. BBC Industrials [2012] 36 MLRG 107, NDK Financial Services Ltd. v. Yiadom Construction & Electrical Works & others [2007-2008] 1 SCGLR 93), Mensah v. Ghana Football Association and Others (supra) Joseph v. Jebeile and Another (1963) 1 GLR 387-392 SC; and held that it must be shown that without the order of stay of execution, the applicant’s appeal, if successful would be rendered nugatory. 141. In Dzokoto & Amissah v BBC Industrials Co (Ghana) Ltd and City Express Bus Services Ltd (supra) at page 830 of the Report, the Supreme Court held per Anin Yeboah JSC (as he then was) that: “In deciding applications for stay of execution, both trial court and an appellate court must carefully examine the judgment appealed against and the order or decree sought to be executed to consider whether the appeal would not be rendered nugatory should the court refuse it and the appellant win on appeal… Secondly, the court must also consider the exceptional circumstances, which depend on the nature of the case… This court may in appropriate cases grant stay where balance of hardship will fall on the appellant.” (Emphasis added) __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 40 of 46 142. In the case of Ghana Telecommunications Co Ltd & Another v Atta VI (supra) the Supreme Court stated that the decision in Linotype-Hell Finance Ltd v. Baker [1992] 4 ALL ER 887 is of persuasive authority and at page 1129 of the Report the Supreme Court quoted the dictum of Stoughton LJ in Linotype-Hell Finance Ltd v. Baker as follows: “Where an unsuccessful defendant seeks a stay of execution pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal, it is a legitimate ground for granting the Application that the defendant is able to satisfy the court that without a stay of execution he will be ruined and that he has an appeal which has some prospect of success.” (Emphasis added) 143. From the authorities referred to in paragraphs 140-142 above, this Court finds that it is not enough as stated by the Plaintiff and submitted by his Counsel that the appeal as filed raises substantial issues of law for determination by the Court of Appeal. It is required that the Plaintiff must also “satisfy the Court that without a stay of execution he will be ruined” or that unless the hands of the Defendant is stayed, he will be ruined. 144. Further, the Court finds that as stated by the Defendant in paragraph 20 of the affidavit in opposition to the instant application, in the case of Micaiah Addai (Masquerading as the president of the Association of Seventh Day Pentecostal Assemblies) vrs Elder Enoch Ofori Jnr and 3 others [Unreported, Civil Motion No. J8/29/2023, Ruling of 16th May 2023], the Supreme Court speaking through His Lordship Kulendi JSC referred to the case of Linotype-Hell Finance Ltd v Baker (supra) its previous decisions in Joseph v Jebeile & Another (supra) NDK Financial Services v Yiadom Construction & Electrical Works Ltd (supra), Djokoto & Amissah v BBC Industrials Co (Ghana) Ltd & City Express Bus Services (supra) amongst others and held that: __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 41 of 46 “From the authorities above, in considering whether or not to grant an application for stay of execution pending appeal, the Court is minded to consider whether or not exceptional circumstances exist to warrant a grant of the order.” (Emphasis added) 145. The Supreme Court further held in Micaiah Addai (Masquerading as the president of the Association of Seventh Day Pentecostal Assemblies) vrs Elder Enoch Ofori Jnr and 3 others (supra) that: Although the list of what constitutes exceptional circumstances is inexhaustive, the following may serve as pointers: a. Has the Applicant mounted a valid appeal? b. Is the judgment sought to be stayed executable or does it have executable consequences? c. What is the likelihood of success of the Applicant’s appeal? In other words, whether the appeal is not frivolous; d. Will the subject matter of the appeal be irretrievably lost should the appeal (which on the face of it is not frivolous) succeed? In other words, will the pending appeal or judgment be rendered nugatory if execution is not stayed? e. Has the Applicant demonstrated sufficient good faith and does the application for stay appear to be intended to enable the Applicant contest the appeal or is it for collateral reason such as undue advantage, overreaching or even to frustrate and/ or deny the victorious party of the fruits of the judgment; f. Will the Applicant suffer irreparable loss, hardship, damage or injury if the execution of the judgment is not stayed? g. On the balance of hardship, will the Applicant suffer greater hardship than the Respondent is the execution of the judgment is not stayed? __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 42 of 46 146. After consideration of the matters stated by the Supreme Court in Micaiah Addai (Masquerading as the president of the Association of Seventh Day Pentecostal Assemblies) vrs Elder Enoch Ofori Jnr and 3 others (supra) and reproduced in paragraph 145 above in relation to the instant case, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any exceptional circumstances exist to warrant the grant of the present application. VIII. CONCLUSION 147. In view of the analysis above, the Court finds that there is no basis for the instant application to be granted and same is thus refused. 148. After consideration of the present application, especially the affidavits in support of and in opposition to the application, the Statements of Case filed by Counsel for the Parties, the oral submissions by Counsel for the Parties in Court, all the circumstances of the substantive case that was before this Court, contained in the processes already filed and on record and referred to and relied on by the Parties in the affidavit in support of and in opposition to the instant application and from the analysis above, this Court is inclined to believe that as stated in paragraphs 5 and 19 of the Defendant’s affidavit in opposition, the instant application is demonstrative of the Applicant’s intent to indirectly review, vary or suspend the decision of the Court is Suit No. FAL 214/10 as well as the decision of this Court in its Ruling of 4th May 2023 and to continue the abuse of the processes of this Court. 149. The Court also notes with regret that by filing the instant application, the Plaintiff has had the support of senior Counsel in this quest to further vex the Defendant with a frivolous and protracted litigation. __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 43 of 46 150. After hearing Counsel for the Plaintiff on whether there is a just cause why costs should not be awarded against Counsel personally and in the absence of justification, costs of Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHS 10,000) is awarded against Counsel for Plaintiff personally in favour of the Defendant having regard to all the circumstances of the instant application and pursuant to Order 74 Rule 9(1) and (2) of C.I. 47. [SGD] NABEELA NAEEMA WAHAB (MS.) J. (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) COUNSEL: 1. AUDREY TWUM HOLDING BRIEF OF KWAME BOAFO AKUFFOCOUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/ APLICANT - PRESENT 2. AMINA ALI ISSAKA HOLDING BRIEF OF DANIYAL ABDUL-KARIM COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT - PRESENT CASES REFERRED TO: 1. The Republic vs High Court (Land Division), Accra, Exparte: The Registered Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Ghana and Nana Oteng Korankye as interested Party (Unreported, Civil Motion No. J5/56/2023, Ruling dated 28th June, 2023, S.C). 2. Republic vs. High Court (Human Rights Division) Accra; Ex parte Akita (Mancell-Egala & Attorney-General Interested Parties) [2010] SCGLR 374. 3. Most Rev. Dr. Robert Aboagye Mensah and 3 others vs Yaw Boakye, (Civil Motion No. J7/05/2022, dated 16th March 2022, S.C) __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 44 of 46 4. Dzokoto & Amissah v BBC Industrials Co (Ghana) Ltd and City Express Bus Services Ltd [2011] 2 SCGLR 825. 5. Odonkor v. Amartei [1987-1988] 1 GLR 578. 6. Ghassoub vs. Dizengoff [1962] 2 GLR 1331, SC 7. Mosi vs. Bagyina [1963] 1 GLR 337. 8. Adam vrs Nuamah [2017-2020] SCGLR 43. 9. Eastern Alloys Company Ltd, vs Silver Star Auto Ltd(Unreported; Suit No. H1/01/2016; dated 14th July 2016). 10. Eastern Alloys Company Ltd v Silver Star Auto Ltd[2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 611. 11. Okofoh Estates Ltd vrs Modern Signs Ltd and another [1995-96] SCGLR, 310. 12. Okofoh Estates Ltd vs Modern Signs Ltd & Another [1996-1997] SCGLR, 224. 13. Attorney General of the Duchy of Lancaster v. L. & N.W.Ry [1892] 3 Ch. 278; 14. Wenlock v Moloney [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1238; [1965] 2 ALL E.R. 871, C.A. 15. Gbenartey & Glie v Netas Properties & Investments & Others [2015-2016] 1 SCGLR 605. 16. Attoh-Quarshie v. Okpote [1973] 1 GLR 59. 17. Omaboe v. Kwame (1978) GLR 122. 18. Michael Ankomah- Nimfa vs James Gyakye Quayson & 2 Others (Unreported; Writ No. J1/11/2022, 13th April, 2022; SC). 19. Owusu vs Owusu-Ansah [2007-2008] 2SCGLR, 870. 20. Vanderpuye vs Nartey [1971] 1 GLR 428, CA. 21. Lardan vs Attorney-General [1957] 3 WALR 55. 22. Punjabi Bros vs Namih [1958] 3 WALR 381. 23. American Cyanamid Co vs Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504. 24. Poutney vs Doega [1987-88] 1 GLR 111(CA). 25. Musicians Union of Ghana vs Abraham [1982-83] GLR 337. 26. Frimpong vs Nana Asare Obeng II [1974] 1 GLR 16. 27. 18th July Limited vs. Yehans International Limited [2012] 1 SCGLR 167. __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 45 of 46 28. Ogyeadom Obranu Kwesi Atta VI v. Ghana Telecommunications Co. Ltd & Anor (Civil Motion No. J8/131/2019); Ghana Telecommunications Co. Ltd & Another v Atta VI [2017- 2020] 1 SCGLR 1090 at page 1109. 29. NDK Financial Services Ltd v Yiadom Construction and Electrical Works [2007-2008] 1 SCGLR 93. 30. Charles Osei Bonsu v. Dorothy Aboagye & Anor (2015) 81 GMJ 25. 31. Joseph v. Jebeile and Another (1963) 1 GLR 387-392 SC. 32. Micaiah Addai (Masquerading as the president of the Association of Seventh Day Pentecostal Assemblies) vrs Elder Enoch Ofori Jnr and 3 others (Unreported, Civil Motion No. J8/29/2023, Ruling of 16th May 2023). 33. Linotype-Hell Finance Ltd v. Baker [1992] 4 ALL ER 887. __________________________________________________________________________________ SUIT NO: LD/0034/2023 – Yaw Boakye vs Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund Page 46 of 46