…Against Asante Boateng & Four Others
An Injunction Application filed by the Numo Nmashie family of Teshie against one Kwadwo Asante Boateng and four others over some parcels if land of which the family is laying claim over has been refused by the Court.
The Numo Nmashie family is claiming ownership over large track of land acquired legitimately by Kwadwo Asante Boateng at Amanhia and four others.Although the matter has travelled at the Courts and judgements delivered, the family remains adamant and continue to assume ownership over the said lands.
Interestingly, the Numo Nmashie family has again filed an Injunction Application against Kwadwo Asante Boateng for the Court to restrain him and four others from entering their own property.
However, the Court presided over by Justice Apenkwa, in deciding the matter, ruled in favour of the Defendant (Kwadwo Asante Boateng).
This ruling add up to the many other rulings that the family lost against the Lands Commission and Kwadwo Asante Boateng.
It could be recall that not too long ago, the Supreme Court has by unanimous decision, quashed by order of Certiorari a High Court ruling delivered in favour of the Numo Nmashie Family of Teshie over some 70 towns and villages in Accra lands which the family was claiming ownership over.
The High Court in a case between the Numo Nmashie family and the Lands Commission gave ruling in favour of the family and ordered the Lands Commission to plot and register all applications submitted by the family in respect of the lands in dispute and indicated that the Lands Commission has breached the Fundamental Human Rights of the Numo Nmashie family.
However, the Supreme Court sitting on May 29, 2017, quashed that decision as delivered by the High Court and indicated that, ‘Let the Judgement of the High Court dated 3rd November, 2016 in Suit Number HR 0111/2016, Numo Nmashie Family of Teshie etc. vrs Lands Commission, be brought before this Court for the purpose of being quashed, on an Order of Certiorari AND the same is hereby quashed.’’
According to the Supreme Court judgement, the grounds of the Application were that the High Court ruling was delivered in breach of the ‘audi alteram rule’ because the Applicant was neither a party to the suit nor was he heard during hearings.
It also established that the decision of the High Court affected the 2nd Interested Party’s (Kwadwo Asante Boateng) peaceful occupation of the piece of land in which he has an interest.
