The Land Division of the Tema High Court has once again thrown out an injunction suit filed against Holmos Construction Limited, a real Estate Company which is located within Afienya in the Tema Metropolis.
The injunction application filed against Holmos is the third suit in a role filed against the company in a space of one year.
The suite was filed by Plaintiff / Applicant Numo Seth Narh Lartey versus Tetteh Akorfa, Ezekiel Tetteh, Nurudeen Sally Deen, Holmos Construction and Engineering Real Estate, Forestry Commission, Nene Tettey Kojo III, Prince Tettey Kojo III, Prince Narteh Gbebie, Kpermeh Ibrahim Narh and Numo Abban Martey.
The first and second suit which were filed at the Tema High Court B earlier this year were equally thrown out.
The trial Judge at the Meridian High Court in His ruling which who among other things, raised the issue of capacity and balance of convenience stated that, the balance of convenience tilts in favor of the respondents which includes Holmos Construction which is the fourth respondent in the matter.
The trial judge went ahead to say “It is trite learning that a host of respectable authorities have settled the principle that an injunctive order is an equitable remedy and discretionary in nature. The Court may grant it when it is just or convenient to do so. Not only that, the order is also granted to protect a right where that legal right could be asserted at law or in equity. To my mind, the exercise of that discretion is not bound to follow precedents as each case has to be decided on its own merits. However, I understand that where guidelines have been laid down in established cases, the Courts are willing to follow them. Having challenged his capacity to take out the action in the first place, I expected applicant to have produced at least a little bit indication of the requisite capacity he has in a supplementary affidavit with leave of Court. But what do we have in the circumstances? Nothing. Nothing of the sort. This is not to say that I have already concluded on the issue of applicant’s capacity. For purposes of emphasis, the temporary order applicant is seeking is both equitable and discretionary in nature and that he who comes to equity must equally do equity. One other fact which is not in issue is Exh HC1, the Land Title Certificate issued in favour of 4th respondent (Holmos Construction) over the land the subject matter of the instant application by the relevant established legal authorities.”
The trial judge further went ahead to say “In my considered view, the respondents, to a large extent, their grantees who are not parties to the application stand to suffer greater hardship than applicant if the application is granted. Therefore, in my considered view, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of respondents. Accordingly, I refuse the application for interlocutory injunction for the above stated reasons.
Similarly, The Tema High Court B also threw out an interlocutory injunction suit brought before it by some acclaimed five joint heads of some five composite families of Kofi Kope of New Jerusalem, a suburb of Afienya.
The heads are Nene Tettey Kojo III, Francis Akrofi Tetteh, Gbebie Nartey, Kperme Ibrahim Narh, Numo Abban Martey all of Afienya.
The five filed a suit at the Tema High court seeking for an interlocutory injunction against a leading real estate company in the Tema enclave, Holmos Construction Limited.
The suit is the second within a space of two months at the beginning of this year filed by different plaintiffs against the company seeking for same relief.
The first suit which was filed on the 4th of February,2023 and the second on the 12th April,2023 respectively were both dismissed.
According to the trial judge, Justice Emmanuel Ankamah in his first ruling on the matter noted that the plaintiff failed to satisfy to the court that his family has either legal or equitable interest in the land in dispute.
However, in the second suit filed by the five plaintiffs who claimed to be heads of some five composite families mandated to grant lands in New Jerusalem, pleaded with the High Court to place an interlocutory injunction against Holmos Construction Limited and are thus seeking for an order of recovery of possession to all portions of plaintiffs 1054 acres allegedly trespassed by Holmos and its grantees.
But the trial judge, Justice Emmanuel Ankamah, again in his ruling dismissed the application and mentioned that the reasons for which the application was refused in the first suit was not disproved and for which reason the application for injunction against Holmos Construction Engineering Services Limited is refused.
The Chief Executive Officer for Holmos Construction Limited, Holy Ativor is quite disappointed at the rate at which deliberate efforts are being made by some acclaimed families to drag the name of his company into the mud.
“I have done what I have to do to ensure my company experiences zero court case but some persons seem to find pleasure in looking for trouble where there is none”.
“We followed all due processes in the acquisition of our lands and same was followed for the acquisition of the title deed for the company so we urge the public not to hesitate to contact us on +233 24 046 6931 to do business with us. Our lands are genuine and indeed are litigation free.”
