GYIMAH & ANOR V YAMOAH & ANOR (A1/11/2024) [2024] GHACC 392 (25 November 2024)

INTHECIRCUITCOURT,JUABEN-ASHANTIBEFOREHHROSEMARIEAFUAASANTE (MRS) HELDON MONDAY25THNOVEMBER 2024 JOHN GYIMAH PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT AFIAFOFOIE (Suingintheircapacityasthebeneficiariesof theEstateoftheirdeceasedMotherAbena Nketiah) AKZ8AGONAAKROFONS0 VRS KWADWOYAMOAH RESEPONDENT AFIANYAMEKYE AKROFONS0 SuitNo.A1/11/2024 RULING The plaintiff/applicant brings this application for injunction against the defendant/ respondents in respect of the subject property being a piece of land at Kunkungya near Agona Akurofousu. Application for interlocutory injunction is captured under Order 25 of the High Court Civil Procedurerules 2004CI47.Order1statesthattheordermaybemadeunconditionallyorupon such terms as the/ court considers fit. Per order 3, the motion paper and supporting affidavit shall also attach a statement of case which sets out full arguments andauthorities in support of theapplication. Statementofcasefortheplaintiffapplicant The plaintiff/applicant herein known as the applicant filed a statement of case setting out in detail the basis for issuing the writ. In summary the plaintiffs calim they are the surviving children of Abena Nkatiah (Deceased) who devised a will and gave the farmland in dispute to theplaintiffs,howeverthedefendantscontinuetotrespassontheland. In support of their case the applicant makes reference to a plethora of decided cases the recent beingOWUSUVRSOWUSU2007/2008 SCGLR870. Although the defendant/Respondent herein known as the defendant was served with the motion, filed an affidavit in opposition yet no statement of case was filed in compliance with Order25 (3).Iwillthereforeconsiderthecasefortheapplicant. The basis for granting an interlocutory injunction is first of all whether there is any interest, be itlegal, equitable andthis is shown bytheapplicantattachedper ExhibitJG1atparagraph 3of theiraffidavitinsupportwhichisawill.Thusthisraisestraibleissuesinthatthedefendantsare also claiming the said property. the case of Owusu vrs Owusu focused on interim injunction and granted the application looking at the pleadings. However thought the principle is the same,thecurrentapplicationwhichis an interlocutoryoneisnotfor10days as it applies inthe caseof Owusuvrs Owusu.Ratherthis application is an interlocutoryonewhichif grantedlasts tillthefinaldeterminationofthematter. Does the status quo ante need to remain? The plaintiffs have exhibited a will alleging that the subject property which is in contention has been devised to them and which the defendants have trespassed. In suppot of this claim per paragraph 9 of their affidavit in support, the applicantattachedexhibitJG2whichawritofsummonsandapreviousjudgment. G5isaphotographshowingallegeddestroyedcropsbythedefendants.Oneoftheprinciplesto consider is whether if the application is not granted or made to remain as it is with no further stepsbeingtaken,noirreparabledamagewillbecaused.Ihaveconsideredtheexhibitsasstated supra and it is my firm believe per the affidavit evidence and argument made by Counsel for theApplicantthatthisapplicationoughttobegrantedandsameisgrantedaccordingly. ……………………..SGD…………………. HHROSEMARIEAFUAASANTE CIRCUITCOURTJUABEN JUABEN-ASHANTI