BOAKYE VRS. BOAKYE (LD/0034/2023) [2024] GHAHC 123 (3 July 2024)

BOAKYE VRS. BOAKYE (LD/0034/2023) [2024] GHAHC 123 (3 July 2024)

The application for interlocutory injunction pending appeal is refused because it is a repeat of a previously dismissed application, constitutes an abuse of process, and the applicant has not demonstrated any legal or equitable interest in the subject land warranting protection. The High Court had jurisdiction to consider extrinsic evidence under Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b) and (d) of C.I. 47. No exceptional circumstances exist to warrant a stay of execution or injunction. Costs are awarded personally against Plaintiff's counsel for vexatious litigation.

Citation
BOAKYE VRS. BOAKYE (LD/0034/2023) [2024] GHAHC 123 (3 July 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/applicant: Yaw Boakye; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund
Court
ghahc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
3 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Land/trust Dispute / Post Judgment Interlocutory Application (injunction Pending Appeal)
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction pending appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Abuse of Process, Estoppel, Jurisdiction, Summary Dismissal, Appeals, Costs Against Counsel
Source Language
eng
Land Law Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Abuse of Process Estoppel Jurisdiction Summary Dismissal +2 more

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 35 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yaw Boakye

Plaintiff/appellant/applicant

Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Land/trust Dispute / Post Judgment Interlocutory Application (injunction Pending Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory injunction application after notice of appeal but before transmission of the record to the Court of Appeal
  2. 2 Whether the application for interlocutory injunction pending appeal is a repeat application and an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the High Court's previous ruling was made without jurisdiction for considering extrinsic evidence under Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b) and (d) of C.I. 47

Ratio Decidendi

The application for interlocutory injunction pending appeal is refused because it is a repeat of a previously dismissed application, constitutes an abuse of process, and the applicant has not demonstrated any legal or equitable interest in the subject land warranting protection. The High Court had jurisdiction to consider extrinsic evidence under Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b) and (d) of C.I. 47. No exceptional circumstances exist to warrant a stay of execution or injunction. Costs are awarded personally against Plaintiff's counsel for vexatious litigation.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction pending appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application for interlocutory injunction pending appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs of GHS 10,000 awarded personally against Plaintiff's counsel in favour of the Defendant.