TRASSACCO FURNITURE LTD VRS JELEEL COMPANY GHANA LTD (H1/30/21) [2021] GHACA 53 (28 October 2021)

TRASSACCO FURNITURE LTD VRS JELEEL COMPANY GHANA LTD (H1/30/21) [2021] GHACA 53 (28 October 2021)

The High Court erred in refusing to set aside the writ of possession because there was uncontroverted evidence that the applicant was in actual possession of the disputed land and had not been served with notice of the proceedings, in violation of Order 43 r 3 of C.I. 47. The writ of possession was also void for failing to describe the land with sufficient particularity. The refusal to set aside the writ and to grant an interlocutory injunction resulted in a miscarriage of justice and was not a proper exercise of judicial discretion.

Citation
[2021] GHACA 53
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Trassacco Furniture Ltd; Plaintiff/respondent: Jeleel Company Ghana Ltd; Defendant: Zion Energy Ltd
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
28 October 2021
Case Number
H1/30/21
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Ruling Refusing to Set Aside Writ of Possession
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Writ of Possession, Interlocutory Injunction, Service of Process, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Default Judgment Writ of Possession Interlocutory Injunction Service of Process 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trassacco Furniture Ltd

Applicant/appellant

Jeleel Company Ghana Ltd

Plaintiff/respondent

Zion Energy Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Ruling Refusing to Set Aside Writ of Possession

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing to set aside the writ of possession issued to the respondent
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was in actual possession of the disputed land and entitled to notice under Order 43 r 3 of C.I. 47
  3. 3 Whether the writ of possession was void for lack of proper description of the land and failure to notify persons in possession

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in refusing to set aside the writ of possession because there was uncontroverted evidence that the applicant was in actual possession of the disputed land and had not been served with notice of the proceedings, in violation of Order 43 r 3 of C.I. 47. The writ of possession was also void for failing to describe the land with sufficient particularity. The refusal to set aside the writ and to grant an interlocutory injunction resulted in a miscarriage of justice and was not a proper exercise of judicial discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Ruling of the High Court refusing to set aside the writ of possession is set aside
  • Order for writ of possession dated 21st November 2019 is declared null and void and set aside