OSAE-KWAPONG VRS. BLACKGOLD AKW LIMITED AND ANOTHER (LD/0481/2023) [2023] GHAHC 588 (8 November 2023)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ACCRA LAND COURT DIVISION ‘9’ HELD ON WEDNESDAY THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE NABEELA NAEEMA WAHAB J. (MS.) SUIT NO. LD/0481/2023 CECIL OSAE-KWAPONG - PLAINTIFF VRS 1. BLACKGOLD AKW LIMITED - DEFENDANTS 2. ANTHONY DUKE ESSIEN R U L I N G INTRODUCTION By a Writ and Statement of Claim filed on 8th June 2023, the Plaintiff instituted an action against the 1st Defendant Company and its Director, the 2nd Defendant. It is the case of the Plaintiff that sometime in the year 2020, the 2nd Defendant approached him and requested him to purchase the land which is the subject of the present dispute, measuring approximately 0.20 acres, situate at La-Wireless in the LaDMA District, Accra and more particularly described in the schedule to the Statement of Claim. SUIT NO: LD/0481/2023 – Cecil Osae-Kwapong vrs Blackgold Akw Limited & Anor Page 1 of 16 It is the further case of the Plaintiff that he negotiated the purchase price with the 2nd Defendant and made full payment to the Defendants, however, the Defendants have refused to hand over documents in respect of the land to him. The Plaintiff stated that a fence wall he erected on the subject land immediately after acquisition has been demolished by the Defendants. He added that when he confronted the 2nd Defendant about it, the 2nd Defendant informed him that the money he paid in respect of the land will be refunded to him. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants have resorted to the use of brute force to prevent him and his workmen from entering the land. By his action the Plaintiff seeks the following reliefs: a. An order of specific performance directed at the Defendants to execute an indenture in the name of the Plaintiff covering the disputed land Defendants sold to the Plaintiff and as described in the schedule contained in the statement of claim. b. An order for recovery of possession of the disputed land c. Ab order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, assigns, hirelings and any other person or entity howsoever called, deriving interest from the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff’s enjoyment of the disputed land. d. Damages for trespass and for demolition of the Plaintiff’s fence wall on the disputed land. e. Any other relief that the court may deem just, proper and convenient to order, in particular, costs, including legal expenses. APPLICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION On the same date on which the Writ and Statement of Claim were filed, 8th June 2023, the Plaintiff also filed the instant application seeking an Order of the Court to restrain the Defendants from interfering with his enjoyment of the subject property pending the final determination of the suit. SUIT NO: LD/0481/2023 – Cecil Osae-Kwapong vrs Blackgold Akw Limited & Anor Page 2 of 16 In a supplementary affidavit filed on 25th July 2023, the Plaintiff stated that the subject land is what the Parties agreed would be sold to him. In proof of this claim, the Plaintiff relied on a Deed of Assignment and a screen shot of a chat stated to be an exchange between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant, dated 12th July 2020, attached to a supplementary affidavit and marked Exhibit F series. The Plaintiff stated that the Deed of Assignment was shared with him by the 2nd Defendant in the chat of 12th July 2020 to indicate how far he had gone in preparation of documentation on the subject land for him. In an affidavit in support of the application, the Plaintiff attached a report of a search obtained from the Lands Commission marked as Exhibit E. The Plaintiff stated that the report indicates the interest of the 1st Defendant in the subject land. In support of his own interest in the subject land, the Plaintiff relied on a site plan of the subject land marked as Exhibit A and receipts marked as Exhibit B series which the Plaintiff maintained are evidence of full payment in respect of the subject property. The Plaintiff also relied on pictures attached and marked as Exhibit C series which he stated showed a fence wall he had constructed on the subject land. In support of the trespass alleged, the Plaintiff relied on pictures attached as Exhibit D series which he stated shows that the Defendants demolished a fence wall he constructed on the subject land after he acquired same. In a Statement of Case attached to the application, Counsel for Plaintiff urged the Court to restrain the Defendants from further interference with the subject land pending the final determination of the case. THE DEFENDANTS DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM On 10th July 2023, the Defendants filed a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim. The Defendants stated that they engaged with the Plaintiff who acted on behalf of his principal, SUIT NO: LD/0481/2023 – Cecil Osae-Kwapong vrs Blackgold Akw Limited & Anor Page 3 of 16 Edwin Provencal. The Defendants however denied ever discussing the purchase of any land at La Wireless with the Plaintiff. It is the case of the Defendants that sometime in late 2019, the Plaintiff knowing that the 1st Defendant is into the real estate business, informed the 2nd Defendant Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the 1st Defendant Company that one Edwin Provencal was in need of land within a prime area in Accra. The Defendants stated that at the time, due to the 1st Defendant’s engagements with the La Traditional Council, it had been appointed the sole agent to facilitate sale of the Council’s lands to third parties. The 2nd Defendant thus informed the Plaintiff that it could facilitate a purchase of land from the La Traditional Council for Edwin Provencal on whose behalf the Plaintiff was acting. The Defendants maintained that the agreement was at all material times for the 2nd Defendant to facilitate the purchase of land in a prime area in Accra and there was no agreement for the purchase of the specific land described in the schedule of the Statement of Claim and situate at La Wireless. The Defendants admitted that the 2nd Defendant received Two Hundred and Twenty Thousand dollars (USD 220,000) over a period of three months and issued receipts for the sum in the name of the Plaintiff. The Defendants however added that the money received was not in respect of any particular land, rather it was received on the understanding that a parcel of land from the La Traditional Council which would be acquired would not exceed Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand dollars (USD 250,000). The Defendants stated that the money received from the Plaintiff was for an on behalf of Edwin Provencal. SUIT NO: LD/0481/2023 – Cecil Osae-Kwapong vrs Blackgold Akw Limited & Anor Page 4 of 16 It is the further case of the Defendants that upon the death of the La Mantse, the 1st Defendant’s position of being the sole agent for facilitating any sale of the La Traditional Council’s lands to third parties was foiled as another agent was appointed. The Defendants added that the entire La Wireless lands were also taken over by National Security owing to protests by the Ghana Civil Aviation Authority over encroachment. It was thus impossible for the Defendants to facilitate any acquisition in the La Wireless area. The Defendants stated that for the above stated reasons, it promptly contacted the Plaintiff, and indicated its readiness to refund the money paid by the Plaintiff as it was no longer in a position to facilitate the purchase of land from the La Traditional Council. The Defendants stated that the Plaintiff refused a refund of the money paid and expressed a willingness for a replacement land in any other prime area of Accra. Acting upon this understanding, the Defendants stated that in the year 2022, the Plaintiff and Edwin Provencal were taken to see parcels of land in Labone and in Roman Ridge area of Accra and they agreed to accept the parcel of land at Roman Ridge which the Defendants were ready to deliver, except that, within the period of finding a replacement land, the Plaintiff had obtained a loan of One million and Two Hundred Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHS 1,200,000) which was the equivalent of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars (USD 200,000) from the 2nd Defendant, to be repaid within twelve (12) months and at an interest of thirty percent (30%) per annum. The Defendant stated that the Plaintiff requested the loan in the name of his company, Everstone Company Energy Limited. The Defendants added that upon the Plaintiff’s request for a loan, the 2nd Defendant with the concurrence of the other directors of the 1st Defendant agreed to advance the monies earlier paid by the Plaintiff for a parcel of land to him. The Defendants stated that the Plaintiff still owes an amount of Four Hundred Thousand Cedis (GHS 400,000) of the loan which he has refused to pay despite repeated demands. SUIT NO: LD/0481/2023 – Cecil Osae-Kwapong vrs Blackgold Akw Limited & Anor Page 5 of 16 The Defendants stated that in view of all of these, when they learnt in May 2023 that the Plaintiff was erecting a fence wall on the subject land at La Wireless, the 2nd Defendant called the Plaintiff to confirm the information he had received, but the Plaintiff denied knowledge of construction works on the land. As a result, the Defendants caused the arrest of the workmen on the subject land and demolished the fence wall being erected on the land. The Defendants added that the Plaintiff subsequently admitted that he engaged the workmen who had been arrested to develop the subject land. It is thus the case of the Defendants that the suit instituted by the Plaintiff is in bad faith, premised on contrived facts and intended to achieve the illicit purpose of unlawfully dispossessing the 1st Defendant of its bona fide property. It is the further case of the Defendants that the subject land is the bona fide property of the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff who agreed to accept land in Roman Ridge in fulfilment of the agreements reached with the Defendants for a parcel of land in a prime area in Accra is estopped from making any claims in respect of the subject land. The Defendants counterclaimed for the following: i. A declaration that there was no contract between 1st defendant and the Plaintiff or Edwin Provencal for the sale of the land describe in the schedule of Plaintiff’s statement of claim. ii. An order compelling Plaintiff to receive from 1st Defendant the sum USD220,000 being the dollar equivalent of the monies paid in Ghana Cedis to the 1st Defendant to facilitate the acquisition of Land in a prime area in Accra and which agreement Plaintiff and his principal, Edwin Provencal have reneged on or in the alternative. iii. An order that Plaintiff and his principal, Edwin Provencal receive the land at Roman Ridge, Accra which was previously accepted in fulfillment of the agreement with Defendants to find in a prime area for them. SUIT NO: LD/0481/2023 – Cecil Osae-Kwapong vrs Blackgold Akw Limited & Anor Page 6 of 16 iv. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Plaintiff, his principal, agents, assigns, privies, servants, heirs, personal representatives, workmen from interfering with the land describe in the schedule of Plaintiff’s statement of claim. v. General damages for trespass. vi. An order for the recovery of the sum of GHS400,000 from Plaintiff and Everstone Energy Limited being the outstanding balance of the loan taken by Plaintiff through Everstone Energy Limited and interest thereon at the agreed contractual rate of 30% per annum until final date of payment. vii. Costs, including lawyer’s fees. DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION The Defendants opposed the application for an order of interlocutory injunction filed by the Plaintiff. In an affidavit in opposition to the application deposed to by the 2nd Defendant, the Defendants stated that the site plan of the subject land, marked Exhibit A and relied on by the Plaintiff in support of his interest in the subject land was fraudulently obtained without the consent of the 1st Defendant who is the owner of the subject land. The Defendants added that the Plaintiff has never been in possession of the subject land and that the fence wall the Plaintiff alleges he constructed and shown in Exhibit D series is a fence wall constructed on the instructions of the 1st Defendant in September 2021. The SUIT NO: LD/0481/2023 – Cecil Osae-Kwapong vrs Blackgold Akw Limited & Anor Page 7 of 16 Defendants relied on a video marked as Exhibit 1 which they stated shows the construction of the fence wall by the 1st Defendant in the year 2021. In further support of their case that the Plaintiff was not in possession of the subject land and did not construct the fence wall shown in Exhibit D series, the Defendants also relied on a screen shot of a chat dated 25th May 2023, marked as Exhibit 2 said to be evidence of a chat between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant in which the Plaintiff denied knowledge of workmen found on the subject land in or about May 2023. It is the case of the Defendants that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated any interest in the subject land and the application for interlocutory injunction should be refused. ISSUE RAISED FOR DETERMINATION: The Court considers that the issue raised for determination by the present application is: Whether or not the Plaintiff has demonstrated that he has a legal or equitable right in the particular land which is the subject of his action and which this court is called upon to protect. APPLICABLE LAW: Order 25 Rule 1(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, (C. I. 47) provides thus: — “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) SUIT NO: LD/0481/2023 – Cecil Osae-Kwapong vrs Blackgold Akw Limited & Anor Page 8 of 16 From the Rules of Court reproduced above, the grant of an interlocutory injunction is discretionary; granted by the Court when it appears from the circumstances of the case that it is just or convenient to do so. Where it is granted, the Order may be made unconditionally or on such terms as the Court considers just. In their recent Ruling in the case of Michael Ankomah-Nimfah v James Gyakye Quayson & 2 Ors [Unreported; Writ No. J1/11/2022; 13 April 2022], the Supreme Court speaking through His Lordship Kulendi JSC referred to the previous decisions of the Supreme Court on interlocutory injunctions such as “Vanderpuye vrs. Martey [1971]1GR 428, CA; Lardan vrs. Attorney General (1957) 3 WALR S5; Punjabi Bros vrs. Namih (1958) 3 WALR 381; American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd 1975 1 All ER 504; Pountney v Doega and Musicians Union of Ghana v Abraham 1982 - 83 GLR 337; Frimpong v Nana Asare Obeng II (1974)1GLR 16.” and stated that “The principles that govern applications for injunction, interim or interlocutory are settled in a plethora of cases” . His Lordship referred to the case of Republic v High Court, Koforidua; Ex parte Ansah Otu [2009] SCGLR 141 in particular and stated that in that case, “the celebrated Anin Yeboah, JSC (as he then was) made the following profound statement of the law at page 152 of the report: The Jurisdiction to grant the interlocutory injunction is exercisable by both the Superior Court of Judicature and the Lower Courts in Ghana… It is a relief which the common law courts have always granted, in the exercise of their discretion, when the circumstances appear to be just and convenient. …In my opinion,…I think the circumstances of the case must be looked at in considering the grant or refusal of the application for interlocutory injunction.” The Supreme Court also stated that an application for interlocutory injunction is “…granted to protect rights and in some cases prevent any injury or damage in accordance with laid down legal principles which have developed as a result of case law over the years.” In exercising its discretion on whether or not to grant the order sought by the Plaintiff by the present application, this Court will thus rely on the settled and laid down principles provided by the Supreme Court. SUIT NO: LD/0481/2023 – Cecil Osae-Kwapong vrs Blackgold Akw Limited & Anor Page 9 of 16 ANALYSIS AND OPINION Order 25 Rule 1(3), (4), (5) and (6) of C. I. 45 provide as follows: (3) The applicant shall attach to the Motion paper and supporting affidavit, a Statement of Case setting out fully arguments, including all relevant legal authorities, in support of the application. (4) A respondent who desires to oppose the application shall file an affidavit in opposition as well as a Statement of Case containing full arguments and the legal authorities to be relied on. (5) Whenever possible, a draft of the order sought (copies of which may be obtained from the Fast Track High Court) should be filed with the application to facilitate speedy preparation and sealing of the order. (6) The application may be considered on the basis of the papers filed and the court may direct, where necessary, the lawyer address it on specific points of law and facts. (Emphasis added) Pursuant to Order 25 Rule 1(6) of C. I. 47, the instant application has been considered on the basis of the papers filed which include the legal arguments Counsel for the parties intend to rely on. Legal or equitable right The Court considered whether or not by the affidavit evidence presented, the Plaintiff has provided evidence of a legal or equitable right in the subject property which this Court is called upon to protect, for as held by the Supreme Court in Owusu v Owusu-Ansah [2007- 2008] 2 SCGLR 870: "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 interim injunction. This could only be determined by considering the pleadings and affidavit evidence before the court." (Emphasis added) SUIT NO: LD/0481/2023 – Cecil Osae-Kwapong vrs Blackgold Akw Limited & Anor Page 10 of 16 Similarly, in the case of 18th July vs. Yehans International Ltd (2012) SCGLR 167 at page 172, the Supreme Court held inter alia per His Lordship Anin-Yeboah JSC (as he then was) as follows: “Even though [the grant of injunction] is discretionary, we are of the view that a ... court in determining interlocutory application must first consider whether the case of an applicant was not frivolous and had demonstrated that he had legal or equitable right which a court should protect.” Site plan In support of his interest in the subject land, the Plaintiff relied on the site plan attached as Exhibit A. The Court notes that from the pleadings filed which the Plaintiff refers to in the affidavit in support of the application, it is the Plaintiff’s case as stated in his Statement of Claim that the Defendants have refused to give him documentation in respect of the subject land. The Court further notes that the Defendants stated in the affidavit in opposition that the site plan was obtained by the Plaintiff without the consent of the 1st Defendant. Deed of Assignment and report of a search From the Deed of Assignment attached to the Plaintiffs supplementary affidavit as Exhibit F series, which the Plaintiff states was shared with him by the 2nd Defendant to show the state of progress made in preparing documentation for him, the Court finds that it is stated that the Assignor is the La Traditional Council and the Assignee is Black Gold AKW Ltd. There is no indication in the Deed of Assignment to show that it is documentation which was being prepared for the Plaintiff. The Court also notes that from the report of the search conducted at Lands Commission attached by the Plaintiff to his affidavit in support of his application and marked as Exhibit E, the subject land was assigned to the 1st Defendant by the La Traditional Council on 27th May 2020. SUIT NO: LD/0481/2023 – Cecil Osae-Kwapong vrs Blackgold Akw Limited & Anor Page 11 of 16 The Court finds that the site plan – Exhibit A, which appears to be the same site plan attached to the Deed of Assignment – Exhibit F series, and the report of the search – Exhibit E do not in any way show what interest the Plaintiff has in the subject land. The Court further notes that there is nothing in the chat exchange of 12th July 2020 relied on by the Plaintiff and marked as Exhibit F series which shows that the Deed of Assignment and the site plan – Exhibit F series and Exhibit A respectively, were shared with the Plaintiff to confirm how far the Defendants had gone in preparing documentation in respect of the subject land for him. The Court therefore finds that on the basis of the affidavit evidence presented, the site plan, Deed of Assignment and report of search conducted by the Plaintiff all show the interest of the 1st Defendant in the subject land rather than the Plaintiff’s interest in same. Receipts In further support of his interest in the subject land, the Plaintiff relied on receipts – Exhibit B series as evidence of payment of the full purchase price for the subject land. The Court notes that from the pleadings, affidavit evidence and papers filed, it is not stated and there is no evidence provided in support of what the Parties agreed to be the full purchase price. The Court thus finds that the Defendants case that there was no agreed purchase price and that the Plaintiff was informed that the cost of land by the La Traditional Council would not exceed Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars (USD 250,000) is more probable. Whilst the Plaintiff maintains that Exhibit B series is evidence of payments made in respect of the subject land, the Court finds that it is stated on the receipts that the sums stated thereon and received from Cecil Osae – Kwarteng are in respect of “land purchased from Blackgold.” (Emphasis added) SUIT NO: LD/0481/2023 – Cecil Osae-Kwapong vrs Blackgold Akw Limited & Anor Page 12 of 16 There is no indication on the receipts that the sums paid by the Plaintiff and received by the 1st Defendant are in respect of the land which is the subject of the present action or in respect of any specific parcel of land. The Court also finds that there is no statement in the chat exchange dated 12th July 2020 marked Exhibit F series which indicates that the payments made by the Plaintiff and acknowledged in the receipts marked Exhibit B series, were in respect of the subject land as claimed by the Plaintiff in the supplementary affidavit. The Court therefore finds that the case of the Defendants that they received payments in respect of an agreement for the purchase of prime land in Accra and not any specific parcel of land seems to be more probably the case on the basis of the papers filed so far. Possession In support of his interest in the subject land, the Plaintiff also stated that he immediately went into possession of the subject land after acquiring same. In support of this claim, he relied on pictures marked as Exhibit C and Exhibit D series. After a careful consideration of Exhibit C and D series, the Court finds that the pictures relied on are not dated and there is thus no evidence before the Court as to when the Plaintiff may have taken possession of the subject land to confirm his claim that he immediately took possession of the subject land after payments were made or same was purchased. The Court however finds from the pictures that there are building blocks yet to be used on the site, recently dug trenches and some development works on the land which have been demolished. SUIT NO: LD/0481/2023 – Cecil Osae-Kwapong vrs Blackgold Akw Limited & Anor Page 13 of 16 The Court also finds from Exhibit C and D series that there is a still a fence wall not demolished and shown in the pictures. It is the case of the Defendants that the fence wall shown on the subject land as Exhibit C and D series which is similar to the fence wall shown by the Defendants in their Exhibit 1 series was constructed by the Defendants in the year 2021 and not by the Plaintiff and that it is rather the Defendants who have been in possession of the subject land and not the Plaintiffs. In further denial of the Plaintiff’s case that he has been on possession of the subject land since it acquired same, the Defendants stated that the Plaintiff only trespassed onto the subject land recently and denied knowledge of the workmen engaged to develop the subject land. The Defendants relied on a screen shot of a chat dated 22nd May 2023 stated to be between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant and marked as Exhibit 2 which seems to support the Defendants case in this respect and has not been denied by the Plaintiff in the supplementary affidavit in filed on 25th July 2023in answer to the Defendants affidavit in opposition. In the absence of any deposition denying these assertions made by the Defendants in the affidavit in opposition, the Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted the claims made, albeit, sub silentio. In the cases of Fori v Ayirebi [1966] GLR 627 S. C and Tutu v Gogo (1969) Cc76, which were cited with approval by the Supreme Court in the case of Assuming & 640 Others vrs. DIC & Anr [Unreported; Civil Appeal No J4/28/2007; 7 May 2008; SC], it was held that an allegation that was not denied nor challenged in any way was deemed admitted and so proved. On the basis of the affidavit evidence, the Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the Defendants that the Plaintiff has not been in possession of the subject land as he claims, that the Plaintiff has only recently trespassed on the subject land and also that the SUIT NO: LD/0481/2023 – Cecil Osae-Kwapong vrs Blackgold Akw Limited & Anor Page 14 of 16 Defendants stopped the Plaintiff from further trespass on the subject land seems to be more probable than not. Whilst the Court considers that the substantive action is not frivolous or vexatious for there is a real question as to what the Parties agreed on to be determined during the trial and although the Court considers that it may be necessary for the status quo to be maintained pending the final determination of the case, in view of the fact that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the first and fundamental rule required for the Court to consider the present application, that is, that the Plaintiff has a legal or equitable interest in the particular land which is the subject of the present action, and which this Court is called upon to protect, the Court is of the considered opinion that it has no basis to consider the application further and the application should be refused. CONCLUSION The present application for interlocutory injunction is refused. The Court however orders pursuant to Order 25 Rule 5 (1) of C. I. 47 that Counsel for both Parties should file the necessary processes for the issues arising from the pleadings to be set down for determination and for the case to be heard and determined on its merits. No order as to costs. COUNSEL: [SGD] NABEELA NAEEMA WAHAB J. (MS.) (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) ROBERT NKANSAH BOATENG HOLDING BRIEF OF SUIT NO: LD/0481/2023 – Cecil Osae-Kwapong vrs Blackgold Akw Limited & Anor Page 15 of 16 ALFRED PAAPA DARKWAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT -PRESENT NICHOLAS LENIN ANANE AGYEI FOR THE DEFENDANTS/ RESPONDENTS - PRESENT CASES REFERRED TO: 1. Michael Ankomah-Nimfah v James Gyakye Quayson & 2 Ors [Unreported; Writ No. J1/11/2022; 13 April 2022] Vanderpuye vrs. Martey [1971]1GR 428, CA Lardan vrs. Attorney General (1957) 3 WALR S5 Punjabi Bros vrs. Namih (1958) 3 WALR 381 American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd 1975 1 All ER 504 Pountney v Doega and Musicians Union of Ghana v Abraham 1982 - 83 GLR 337 Frimpong v Nana Asare Obeng II (1974)1GLR 16 Republic v High Court, Koforidua; Ex parte Ansah Otu [2009] SCGLR 141 Owusu v Owusu-Ansah [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 870 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 18th July vs. Yehans International Ltd (2012) SCGLR 167 11. Fori v Ayirebi [1966] GLR 627 S. C and Tutu v Gogo (1969) Cc76, 12. Assuming & 640 Others vrs. DIC & Anr [Unreported; Civil Appeal No J4/28/2007; 7 May 2008; SC] SUIT NO: LD/0481/2023 – Cecil Osae-Kwapong vrs Blackgold Akw Limited & Anor Page 16 of 16