Ghana Judgment

ghahc

THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF EBENEZER SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL VRS ATTORNEY GENERAL & ANOR. (LD/0046/2024) [2024] GHAHC 200 (27 March 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a greater hardship on the balance of convenience, and the land is State land required for a public project; thus, an injunction against the Government is not justified at this stage.

Court disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed

02

Material facts

Parties

The Board of Governors of Ebenezer Senior High School

Plaintiff/applicant Counsel: Naa Djamah Ayikoi-Otoo Esq., h/b for Ayikoi-Otoo Esq.

Attorney General

Defendant/respondent

The Municipal Chief Executive of Ablekuma West Municipal Assembly

Defendant/respondent Counsel: Nana Baafi Yeboah Esq., with Dzidzor Ami Logoh Esq., h/b for Gary Nimako Marfo Esq.

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Plaintiff claims possession of the land for over twelve years, asserting possessory title under Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1972, and seeks to restrain Defendants from interference pending suit determination.
Respondent
2nd Defendant argues the land is State land acquired under an Executive Instrument and leased to State Housing Company since 1996; asserts adverse possession cannot be exercised over State land per Section 236 of Act 1036.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Welford Quarcoo v. A.G. and Anor [2012] SCGLR 259

    Courts hesitate to grant interlocutory injunctions against statutory entities.

  2. 02

    Section 236 of Act 1036

    Adverse possession cannot be exercised over State land.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a greater hardship on the balance of convenience, and the land is State land required for a public project; thus, an injunction against the Government is not justified at this stage.

Obiter and limits

  • Applicant is not precluded from pursuing its possessory claim in the substantive matter.

Court disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed

Source and reliance status

ghahc · 27 March 2024

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

ghahc

Judgment· 27 March 2024

THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF EBENEZER SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL VRS ATTORNEY GENERAL & ANOR. (LD/0046/2024) [2024] GHAHC 200 (27 March 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE GHANA (LAND COURT 7) HELD IN ACCRA ON WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU (J.) SUIT NO. LD/0046/2024

THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF EBENEZER SENIOR HIGH

SCHOOL H/NO. 128, BOTOI SHIENYO STREET, DIGITAL ADDRESS, GA-588-1702, DANSOMAN – ACCRA :: PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT VRS 1. ATORNEY GENERAL :: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTS 2. THE MUNICIPAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF ABLEKUMA WEST MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY DANSOMAN – ACCRA ================================================= PARTIES:

PLAINTIFF REPRESENTED BY SAMUEL ARYEE PRESENT

DEFENDANTS ABSENT LEGAL REPRESENTATION: NAA DJAMAH AYIKOI-OTOO ESQ., H/B FOR AYIKOI-OTOO ESQ., FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT PRESENT NANA BAAFI YEBOAH ESQ., WITH DZIDZOR AMI LOGOH ESQ,. H/B FOR GARY NIMAKO MARFO ESQ., FOR 2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT PRESENT =================================================

R U L I N G RULING DELIVERED BY JUSTICE ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT. NO. LD/0046/2024 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ ON 27 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 “r.a.a” 1 The Plaintiff in this Application is praying for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the Defendants and their Officers, agents, assigns, workmen and Contractors etc., from interfering with any portion of its forty- five acre land pending the determination of the suit. According to the Plaintiff, it has been in possession of the subject matter land for over twelve years and that confers possession title on it by virtue of Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1972. The Application was opposed by the 2nd Defendant, arguing that the subject matter land is a State Land acquired under an Executive Instrument (Exhibit ‘MC’) which was subsequently leased to the State Housing Company, a State entity, since 1996. The Company has exercised rights of ownership over the land together with the other adjoining lands owned by the State. The Respondent denies the ownership of the Plaintiff and contends that adverse possession cannot be exercised over a State Land by virtue of the law. (See Section 236 of Act 1036) After carefully considering the Application and the submission of both Counsel, I regret to say that I am unable to accede to the request and prayer of the Applicant. As a matter of fact the Courts have hesitated to grant Interlocutory Injunctions against statutory entities. (See WELFORD QUARCOO VR A.G. AND ANOR) [2012], SCGLR 259 AT 260, YAW OSAFO MARFO VRS EOCO [2012] 45 GMJ 85 AT 92–93, REPBULIC BRS HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK DIVISION) ACCRA, EXPARTE; GHANA LOTTO OPERATIONS ASSOCIATION (NATIONAL LOTTERY AUTHORITY – INTERESTED PARTY) [2009] SCGLR 372 AT 400 AND RANSFORD FRANCE (NO.

1) VRS E.C. AND A.G. [2012] 1 SCGLR 689 AT HOLDING 1. The Applicant could not demonstrate that on the balance of convenience, it stands to suffer greater hardship. RULING DELIVERED BY JUSTICE ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT. NO. LD/0046/2024 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ ON 27 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 “r.a.a” 2 The Respondent claims the Government requires the land, which it owns, for an Ultra-modern Hospital Project for the benefit of the people in the Municipality. To injunct the Government at this stage on its own land does not seem to me to be right, without prejudice to the Applicant to ventilate its possessory claim in the substantive matter. In light of the above, I decline to grant the Plaintiff’s Application for Interlocutory Injunction. (SGD.) H/L ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU

JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

REFERENCES CASES CITED: 1. WELFORD QUARCOO VR A.G. AND ANOR) [2012], SCGLR 259 2. YAW OSAFO MARFO VRS EOCO [2012] 45 GM J85 3. REPBULIC BRS HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK DIVISION) ACCRA, EXPARTE; GHANA LOTTO OPERATIONS ASSOCIATION NATIONAL LOTTERY AUTHORITY INTERESTED PARTY) [2009] SCGLR 372 4. AND RANSFORD FRANCE (NO.

1) VRS E.C. AND A.G. [2012] 1 SCGLR 689. RULING DELIVERED BY JUSTICE ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT. NO. LD/0046/2024 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ ON 27 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 “r.a.a” 3 ENACTMENT: SECTION 236 OF ACT 1036 RULING DELIVERED BY JUSTICE ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT. NO. LD/0046/2024 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ ON 27 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 “r.a.a” 4

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Welford Quarcoo v. A.G. and Anor [2012] SCGLR 259

Case cited

Yaw Osafo Marfo v. EOCO [2012] 45 GMJ 85

Case cited

Republic v. High Court (Fast Track Division) Accra, Ex Parte; Ghana Lotto Operations Association (National Lottery Authority – Interested Party) [2009] SCGLR 372

Case cited

Ransford France (No. 1) v. E.C. and A.G. [2012] 1 SCGLR 689

Case cited

Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1972

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 236 of Act 1036

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.