NAIRAY ESTATE DEVELOPMENT VRS ISMAIL (J4/44/2024) [2025] GHASC 8 (26 February 2025)

NAIRAY ESTATE DEVELOPMENT VRS ISMAIL (J4/44/2024) [2025] GHASC 8 (26 February 2025)

The Supreme Court found no error in the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal that the plaintiff had established a right to the land sufficient to justify interlocutory protection. The ground of appeal based on weight of evidence was misconceived as the application was determined on affidavit evidence, not after a plenary trial. The exercise of discretion by the lower courts was proper and supported by the evidence.

Citation
[2025] GHASC 8
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant/respondent/respondent: Nairay Estate Development; Defendant/respondent/appellant/appellant: Mohammed Ismail
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
26 February 2025
Case Number
J4/44/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Appeal Affirming High Court Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Title to Land, Appeals, Exercise of Judicial Discretion
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunction Title to Land Appeals Exercise of Judicial Discretion

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nairay Estate Development

Plaintiff/applicant/respondent/respondent

Mohammed Ismail

Defendant/respondent/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Appeal Affirming High Court Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the High Court's grant of interlocutory injunction restraining both parties from interfering with the disputed land
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff had established a right to the land justifying protection by injunction
  3. 3 Whether the appeal ground that the ruling was against the weight of evidence was sustainable in an interlocutory application

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found no error in the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal that the plaintiff had established a right to the land sufficient to justify interlocutory protection. The ground of appeal based on weight of evidence was misconceived as the application was determined on affidavit evidence, not after a plenary trial. The exercise of discretion by the lower courts was proper and supported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed in its entirety
  • Interlocutory injunction restraining both parties from interfering with the disputed land pending final determination of the suit remains in force