Advertisement
Advertisement
Ghana News

Court dismisses injunction against Oshuiman Stool

Advertisement

The Sowutuom High Court has denied an interlocutory injunction sought by the Nii Sempe Mensah Family of Ablekuma to halt any development on a disputed 4,389.68-acre plot of property in Oshuiman, Ga West Municipality.

The Nii Sempe Mensah Family sought an injunction after filing a lawsuit against the Oshuiman Stool and Nii Adotei Okropong II, the Mankralo of Oshuiman.

Advertisement

Godwin Nartey represented the application, while Mumin Mashood represented the Oshuiman stool and Nii Okropong.

In addition to rejecting the plea for an interlocutory injunction, the court, presided over by Justice Jane Harriet Akweley Quaye, fined the applicant, the Nii Sempe Mensah Family, GH5,000 in favor of the respondents.

The petitioner argued that the disputed 4,389.68 acres of property claimed by the Oshuiman Stool were within the large majority of the family’s territory.

As a result, the Nii Sempe Mensah Family requested that the court issue an injunction prohibiting the respondents, their assigns, privies, or agents from interacting with the disputed land until the substantive litigation was resolved.

The High Court, in dismissing the application for interlocutory injunction, found that the Nii Sempe Mensah Family had failed to show any legal interest to the land that should have been safeguarded by the court through an order for interlocutory injunction.

The court reasoned that the petitioner had predicated its legal right to the land on the site plan, which was illegal because it had not been signed.

“The court is of the view that since proof in law is a pre-requisite in establishing a claim, it is not convinced that the plaintiff has established his legal right based on the site plan,” the court held.

The court went on to say that even if the petitioner had established a legal right, it could be paid with damages at the conclusion of the trial, therefore there was no need for an interlocutory injunction order.

“The court is of the view that if at the end of the case, the matter is determined in favour of the plaintiff, damages will suffice as compensation to the plaintiff depending on how they establish their case before this court.

Application refused,” the court ruled.

 

 

 

Advertisement
Advertisement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement
Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker!