The Land Division of the High Court has dismissed an application filed by the Abbeyman Family of Accra for an interlocutory injunction to restrain Landline Properties Limited, a real estate development company, from developing a parcel of land at Oshuiman.
According to the applicant, the land in dispute was wrongfully granted to the company by the Oshuiman Family per a lease dated January 4, 2000.
An affidavit in support of the motion, deposed by Jacob Nii Ahele Buabeng, the acting Head of the family, claimed, among other things, that the land title certificates held by the company were procured by fraud and replete with irregularities.
The basis for the allegation of fraud, according to the affidavit, was that the lease was executed before the site plan was made.
It said the lease, which was submitted to the Lands Commission on August 23, 2000, was registered on the same day.
In addition, the affidavit said although it was registered on August 23, 2000, publication in the Ghanaian Times regarding the registration was made on February 31, 2001.
But the court, in its ruling, dismissed the application on the ground of procedural irregularity and lack of merit.
Presided over by Mr Justice Eric Baah, the court said the claims of the applicant could only be properly determined in the substantive trial of the case.
It was of the view that an injunction on the respondent would result in the collapse of the company.
According to the court, in this era of unemployment, it would be irresponsible to clog the activities of a company employing people and kill it.
‘Further, Ghana has a huge deficit in houses. There is no justification halting the construction of houses by the respondent for the people of this country,’ it further observed.
It held that the applicant’s main interest was the consideration it had to receive for the value of its land, adding, ‘That is why it produced evidence indicating that it sold the land to the respondent, for which part-payment was made.’
‘By the applicant’s own logic, there would have been no dispute if the respondent had paid fully for the land,’ the court held.
Leave a comment. 0 comment so far.