Alhaji Ismail Abubakar -vrs- Enoch Francis Annan Tetteh [2023] GHACA 64 (22 February 2023)

Alhaji Ismail Abubakar -vrs- Enoch Francis Annan Tetteh [2023] GHACA 64 (22 February 2023)

The trial judge exercised discretion judiciously by restraining both parties and ordering an undertaking as to damages, considering the rights and interests of both parties and the balance of convenience. No error in law or misapprehension of facts was demonstrated by the appellant.

Citation
Alhaji Ismail Abubakar -vrs- Enoch Francis Annan Tetteh [2023] GHACA 64 (22 February 2023)
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Alhaji Ismail Abubakar; Plaintiff/respondent: Enoch Francis Annan Tetteh
Court
ghaca
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
22 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court ruling affirmed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Discretion of Court, Balance of Convenience, Legal and Equitable Rights, Appeal Grounds
Source Language
eng
Civil Procedure Property Law Interlocutory Injunction Discretion of Court Balance of Convenience Legal and Equitable Rights Appeal Grounds

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alhaji Ismail Abubakar

Defendant/appellant

Enoch Francis Annan Tetteh

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in granting interlocutory injunction without considering defendant's investment
  2. 2 Whether the ruling was against the weight of evidence
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff established a legal or equitable right to the disputed land

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge exercised discretion judiciously by restraining both parties and ordering an undertaking as to damages, considering the rights and interests of both parties and the balance of convenience. No error in law or misapprehension of facts was demonstrated by the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court ruling affirmed

Orders

  • Interlocutory injunction against both parties affirmed
  • Plaintiff/respondent to execute undertaking as to damages