AUGUSTINES KOFI DETI & 3 OTHERS vs DICKSON DETTI & ANOTHER
  • IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE
    IN THE HIGH COURT
    HO - A.D 2019
AUGUSTINES KOFI DETI AND 3 OTHERS -(Plaintiff)
DICKSON DETTI AND ANOTHER - (Defendant)

DATE:  25 TH JUNE 2018
SUIT NO:  E5 / 02 / 2018
JUDGES:  ERIC B A AH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
LAWYERS:  EMILE ATSU AGBAKPE FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANT
ROBERTSON KPATSA FOR DEFENDANT ABSENT
RULING

Order 25 of C.I. 47 mandates the court to grant an order of interlocutory injunction where same is considered just or convenient. Since the application is by motion, it falls to be determined based on the affidavits and annexures filed by the parties. The respondents; even though served with applicants' motion (through their counsel) failed or refused to file any affidavit in opposition.

 

The respondents are deemed to admit the depositions of the applicants in their affidavit, albeit sub silentio.

 

The applicants' depositions allege that the respondents' father, who was the head of the Deti family "sold the entire land to prospective developers and developed portions of the land with the proceed of the sale" – paragraph 6 of affidavit in support.

 

He was alleged also to have purchased other properties with the proceeds from the family land sold.

 

The applicants contend that the portions of the family land developed by the respondent's late father, Seth Kwami Deti, and the properties he acquired from the sale of family property, remain the property of the family.

 

The applicants allege further that the said properties were willed to the respondents by their father, Seth Kwami Deti.

 

The respondents are allegedly disposing of the properties the family lay claim to be theirs. In the circumstances, the court holds the view that the applicants have established a legal right in equity (trust) in the subject matter of their suit. If the respondents are not restrained, they may dispose of the entire property by time the suit is determined. The balance of convenience favours the applicants. Damages are not likely to be sufficient compensation for the applicants, in the event of refusal of the application and success of their (applicants') case.

 

I find merit in the application and grant it as prayed. The Defendants/Respondents are hereby restrained from dealing with or alienating the properties gifted to them under the Will of their late father, until the final determination of the case.