PLAINTIFF IS PRESENT
NO REPRESENTATION FOR 2ND
TO 13TH
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS
MR. DICK ANYADI FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
MS. RUFINA ACQUAH FOR 1ST
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
This ruling is in respect of an
application by the Plaintiff
herein filed on 18th
April, 2008 for an order to stay
execution of part of the
judgment of this court delivered
by Her Ladyship, Justice Novisi
Aryene (Mrs.) on 11th
February, 2011 pending an appeal
he filed at the Court of
Appeal. The part of the
judgment which provokes this
application directs the
plaintiff/applicant to demolish
the sand crete block security
fence wall which he constructed
around his property.
It is the applicant’s case that
he constructed the fence wall at
very great cost running into
thousands of Ghana cedis with
the express consent of the
holder of the legal title, that
is, the State Housing Company.
In addition he obtained a
building permit from the Accra
Metropolitan Authority.
Applicant therefore says that he
stands to suffer substantial
loss in terms of money should he
demolish the said fence wall
only to rebuild same should his
appeal succeed. He also contends
that he stands to expose himself
and his family to great security
risk of exposure to thieves as
he has no means to adequately
secure his property while the
appeal is pending.
The applicant gives an
undertaking to allow free access
to the communal septic tank in
his backyard for the use by
adjoining property owners whose
effluent accumulates in the
communal septic tank.
The 1st Defendant by
its Solicitor filed an affidavit
in opposition to the instant
motion on 3rd May,
2011. The 1st
Defendant’s case is that the
Plaintiff as well as the 2nd
to 13th Defendants
each paid the same amount of
money for their respective
apartments in the terrace
building and the communal septic
tank was constructed for the
benefit of all the occupants of
the terrace building with the
Plaintiff actively involved in
the construction of same.
However, the Plaintiff has
denied the other occupants
access to the septic tank to
dislodge same and has even
interfered with the operation of
same by blocking the opening
into the septic tank. So if the
said fenced wall is allowed to
stand, it will not only
inconvenience the other
occupants but it will also be a
continuous source of conflict at
the terrace building between the
Plaintiff on the one hand and
the 2nd to 13th
Defendants on the other.
As to whether the appeal has a
real likelihood of success is
not for this Court to say but
the appellate court. What is
important in this application is
an issue of hardship and
convenience. Certainly the
Plaintiff did not construct the
fence wall within a day or two.
In the full glare of the
Defendants, the Plaintiff
started and completed the
construction of the fenced wall
at his own expense before this
action was subsequently
mounted. He expended money in
so doing. So if he has been
ordered by this Court to
demolish the said wall and he
has appealed against the order
it is my view that the status
quo should remain pending the
determination of the appeal if
not the Plaintiff stands to
suffer hardship and
inconvenience if he demolishes
the wall only to rebuild same if
he succeeds on appeal.
Moreover the Plaintiff in his
affidavit in support of this
motion undertakes to allow the
other occupants of the terrace
building access to the said
communal septic tank pending the
hearing and determination of the
appeal. So the other users of
the said septic tank would not
suffer any hardship or
inconvenience if this
application is granted.
For the above reasons it is my
view that the application finds
favour with me and same is
hereby granted.
The Order of this Court for the
Plaintiff to demolish the said
fence wall is hereby stayed
pending the determination of
appeal.
(SGD.) UUTER PAUL DERY
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
*aq*
|
