TVHA Homeowners Association LBG v Empire Builders Limited and Another (SUIT NO.H1/61/2026) [2026] GHACA 9 (4 June 2026)

TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR -

Judgment

pg. 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ACCRA, 2026

Coram

JEROME NOBLE-NKRUMAH, J.A (PRESIDING) MARY MAAME EKUE YANZUH, J.A FRANKLINA GESILA ADANU, J.A

SUIT NO.H1/61/2026 4TH JUNE, 2026

TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG (PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT/APPELLANT)

VERSUS

1. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED

2. TRASACCO ESTATE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS)

FRANKLINA GESILA ADANU, J.A:

TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR -

pg. 2 1.0 General Overview This interlocutory appeal emanates from the decision of the High Court delivered on 08/07/2025. In his article, ‘Interlocutory Injunctions and Irreparable Harm in the Federal Courts’ reported in the 2009 Canadian Bar Review volume 88 (3), Norman Siebrasse noted in his concluding remarks thus:

“The object of interlocutory injunction is to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period of uncertainty prior to trial. … This is not to say that interlocutory injunctions should routinely be granted if the plaintiff shows a risk of loss. The traditional practice in Chancery remains sound today: when an injunction is refused, it should be done on the basis of comparative injury not on the basis of a technical rule. This was the basic message of Cyanamid, and it bears repeating today.”

2.1 Plaintiff/Applicant/Appellant’s Case (“Appellant”) The Appellant is an association which was formally registered in 2023 as a company limited by guarantee by the Homeowners of Trasacco Valley Estate Phase 1 with set objects including promoting security and protecting the lives of its members and their properties. The first and second Respondents are two companies under the Trasacco Group, originally responsible for developing and selling the estate, which was developed between 1997 and 2010. On 04/11/2024, the Appellant issued a Writ of Summons against the Respondents claiming the following reliefs: “a. A declaration that the Respondents action to forcefully take over the management of Trasacco Valley Estate Phase 1 against the decision of Homeowners constitutes an abuse of the fundamental human right, freedom and liberty of Homeowners. b. A declaration that the Respondents are estopped by conduct, laches and acquiescence from asserting the right to manage Trasacco Valley Estate Phase1. TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR -

pg. 3 c. A declaration that as beneficial owners of the Homes in Trasacco Valley Estate Phase 1, the Appellant is entitled to manage the estate and/or decide who should manage the estate for Homeowners. d. Perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents, their Directors, Agents, Assigns, Successors in-title etc from asserting any right and/or authority to manage Trasacco Valley Estate Phase 1 for Homeowners. e. Cost including Solicitors fees.”

Concurrently on 04/11/2024, the Appellant applied to the court for an order of interlocutory injunction praying the court for an order to restrain the Respondents from asserting any right or authority to manage Trasacco Valley Estate Phase 1 for Homeowners pending final determination of the suit.

In the affidavit in support of the injunction application, it was deposed on behalf of the Appellant that the by-law executed pursuant to the sub-leases of the individual Homeowners allowed the Respondents to manage the estate for five (5) years post first sale. The Appellant took over the estate management in 2006 upon dissatisfaction with the Respondents' appointed manager (XL Real Estate Services) in 2004 and has managed the estate for eighteen (18) years, employing about seventy (70) workers and receiving regular estate fees from the Respondents until 2023, when it took steps to formally register the Association as TVHA Home Owners Association LBG.

Furthermore, per the final judgment of the Supreme Court dated 16/12/2020, Suit No. J4/10/2019 intituled Empire Builders Ltd v. Topkings Enterprises Ltd & 4 Ors, the Respondents' ownership right to the land on which Trasacco Valley Estate Phase 1 stands has been extinguished by the Supreme Court, having held the Nungua Stool as the owner of the said lands. Pursuant to this judgment, the Appellant commenced negotiation with the Nungua Stool for attornment of TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR -

pg. 4 tenancy by its members in respect of their homes at Trasacco Valley Estate Phase 1to the Nungua stool.

Notwithstanding previous acknowledgement of the Appellant’s management rights, the Respondents tried to reclaim control of the management of the estate from the Appellant and locked the Appellant out of the estate office by deploying armed land guards at the gate. It was further deposed on behalf of the Appellant that multiple confrontations, including interference with security protocols and scuffles on 30/10/2024, led to National Security intervention. Nonetheless, their intervention did not ease the situation as the Respondents’ armed land guards continue to mount surveillance at the entrance to the estate, posing a security threat to homeowners and visitors. The Respondents’ conduct, including intimidation and use of force, violates homeowners’ rights, court orders and standard real estate practices. It is the case of the Appellant that unless restrained by the Court, the Respondents will continue to unduly assert management rights over the estate. On the balance of convenience, the Respondents stand to lose nothing if they are restrained as opposed to homeowners' fundamental human rights, freedom and personal liberties being trampled upon with impunity by the Respondents. In the unlikely event that this application is refused, the Respondents' illegal conduct would be perpetuated to create chaos and occasion a likely breach of the peace in the estate as exemplified by the incident of

2.2 Defendants/Respondents/Respondents’ Case (“Respondents”) In their Affidavit in Opposition filed on behalf of the Respondents, it was deposed that the Appellant is not a recognised Association but comprised only a few dissatisfied Homeowners who recently came together to form the Association in an attempt to take over the management of the estate from the existing TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR -

pg. 5 homeowners association following the decision in Suit No. J4/10/2019 aforesaid, on the mistaken belief that the first Respondent lost the matter and therefore did not own the estate and the common areas any longer. According to the Respondents, it never relinquished its control of the estate to the Appellant’s Association in 2006.

The Respondents stated that upon the completion of Phase 1development, the first Respondent set up a homeowners’ Association called Trasacco Valley Phase 1 Homeowners Association which comprised all the Homeowners of the Phase 1 development and has since 2008 been involved in the appointment, management and/or any matter relative to the management of the Association to the knowledge and acquiesce of the few members numbered ten (10) members who are determined to take over the management of the Association from the first Respondent’s official Association. The Respondents said that they became aware of the clandestine attempts by Appellant’s Association to take over the office that the first Respondent made available for the operations of the Association it duly formed in 2008 and the management of the common areas and the main entrance to the estate. The Appellant’s attempt to install the electronic bloom gate at the entrance of the estate was to seal its control of the estate, the movement of the Respondents and their associates, and to inveigle other homeowners who did not belong to the Appellant’s Association.

When every attempt to engage the Appellant towards the amicable settlement of the matter failed, the Respondents stated that they were compelled to take steps to subvert any attempts at imposing a rival Association on the estate and also subvert any attempt to change the face, nature and character of the estate entrance. To ensure a smooth subversion, the Respondents stated that they placed their professional security at the estate entrance to ensure that the estate is not changed and access to and from the estate is not impeded. The Respondent stated that they TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR -

pg. 6 have the duty to ensure that the estate is properly managed for the benefit of all estate members. The Respondents further denied any interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the Appellant’s properties.

3.0 Decision of the Court The court below delivered its ruling on 08/07/2025 as follows: “The Application for interlocutory injunction is hereby determined by the making of the following Orders:

1. Early trial of the substantive case is hereby ordered, subject only to the needs of other cases. For this purpose, let the Registrar of the court give the case docket to the presiding judge as soon as pleadings in the case close pending the filing of any application for Directions.

2. Let the Registrar of this court refer paragraph 41 of the Affidavit in support of this Application together with the orders of this court to the Police for the police to act as they consider fit.

3. There is no order as to cost in this Application.”

4.0 Grounds of Appeal Dissatisfied with the decision above, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 17/07/2027 with the following grounds of appeal: “a. That the judgment is against the weight of affidavit evidence and exhibits on record. b. That the trial judge erred in law by failing to appreciate that the Plaintiff/Appellant has established a prima facie case to merit the grant of an interlocutory injunction against the Defendant/Respondents. c. The trial judge erred on the facts by failing to appreciate the security threats the Defendants/Respondents conduct poses to Homeowners, their properties and guests, as well to merit a restraining order against the Defendants/ Respondents. TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR -

pg. 7 d. The trial Judge erred on the fact by failing to appreciate the fact that on a balance of hardship, the Defendant/Respondent loses nothing when restrained as opposed to the Plaintiff/Appellant whose lives and properties have been endangered by the conduct of the Defendants/Respondents.”

5.0 Applying the Law and Analysis It needs no further emphasis that an interlocutory injunction is a discretionary exercise for the court, and the use of that discretion should be fair and candid and should be used judicially to avoid irreparable harm from being caused to the parties. In Montero & Another v. Redco Ltd. & Another [1984/86] 1 GLR 710, the court held that: “An interim injunction was discretionary and normally granted where there was a legal right which could be asserted either at law or in equity; the court had a discretion to grant an injunction in protection of that right. The court’s jurisdiction to grant an injunction was practically unlimited and would be exercised on any case in which it was right or just to do so having regard to settled legal reasons or principles”.

In the case of Sappor v. Wigatap Ltd. [2007-2008] SCGLR 676, Wood JSC (as she then was) in defining the role of an appellate court in interfering with a trial court’s exercise of discretion held inter alia in holding (1) that: “The well-known and time honoured legal principle is that an appeal against a decision based on the exercise of a court’s discretionary jurisdiction, could succeed in only those clearly exceptional cases where, in sum, the judge failed to act judicially. The applicable principles are: An appellant court would interfere with the exercise of discretion where the court below applied wrong principles or the conclusions reached would work manifest injustice or even that the discretion TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR -

pg. 8 was exercised on wrong or inadequate material. Arbitrary, capricious and uninformed conclusions stand in danger of being reversed on appeal”.

A trial court’s discretion can be interfered with only where wrong principles were applied or where the trial judge applied wrong or inadequate material or the conclusion reached by the trial judge would work manifest injustice . See Ballmoos v. Mensah (1984-86)1 GLR 724 and Kyenkyenhene vrs Adu (2003- 2004)1 SCGLR 142

The essence of interlocutory injunction was pronounced by the English House of Lords in the celebrated case of American Cyanamid Co. Ethicon Ltd. [1975] AC 396 as follows:

“The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial; but the plaintiff’s need for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights from which he could not be adequately compensated under the plaintiff’s undertaking in damages if the uncertainty were resolved in the defendant’s favour at the trial. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the balance of convenience lies.”

In the Supreme Court case of Welford Quarcoo v. The Attorney-General and the Electoral Commission [2012] DLSC 2661, cited with approval by Amadu JSC in the case of Vincent Ekow Assafuah v. The Attorney General [2025] TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR -

pg. 9 DLSC 18375, Dr. Date-Bah JSC detailed the requirements for the grant of an interlocutory injunction:

“…first, that the applicant must establish that there is a serious question to be tried; secondly, that he or she would suffer irreparable damage which cannot be remedied by the award of damages, unless the interlocutory injunction is granted; and finally that the balance of convenience is in favour of granting him or her the interlocutory injunction. The balance of convenience, of course, means weighing up the disadvantages of granting the relief against the disadvantages of not granting the relief.” In the case of 18th July Ltd. v Yehans International Ltd. [2012] 1 SCGLR 167 Holding (2), His Lordship Anin Yeboah JSC (as he then was) stated the basic principles governing application for interlocutory injunction as follows: - “(i) That the status quo should as much as possible be maintained. (ii) That the court should ensure that the successful party does not have a hallow victory at the end of the day. (iii) That the order does not work greater inconvenience to either party than is reasonably or absolutely necessary and (iv) That the question of hardship to either party must be seriously considered.” It is one thing to balance off one statement of principle against another, but the true measure of a principle is in its application to the facts. In this case, did the Appellant establish that there is a serious question to be tried in the substantive case to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction? TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR -

pg. 10

The Appellant argued the three requirements in ground B of its grounds of appeal. On the question of whether there was a serious issue to be tried, the Appellant contended that the trial judge wrongly exercised his discretion in ordering an early trial instead of granting the application, thus rendering his ruling otiose and rather amounting to a refusal of the application for interlocutory injunction. Counsel contended that the application was not frivolous as there was a legal or equitable right in need of protection in many areas.

The Appellant submitted that even before the decision in Suit No. J4/10/2019 intituled Empire Builders Ltd v. Topkings Enterprises Ltd & 4 Ors was delivered by the Supreme Court on 16/12/2020, the Association of 150 Homeowners had a valid sublease, and they still hold possessory rights over their respective properties. Counsel cited the cases of Punjabi v. Namih [1958] 3 WALR 381 at 383-384 and Owusu v. Owusu-Ansah and Another [2007-2008] SCGLR 870,

876. He also cited Boi Stool, Paul Nortey & Ors v. Daniel Addoquaye, Benjamin Tetteh Addo and Numo Nmashie Family 22/03/2023 Civil Appeal No. J4/13/2020 where Amadu JSC said that: “b. All persons who have acquired grants from Numo Nmashie Family in areas which by this judgment have been held not to belong to the said 1st and 2nd Defendant Family and have taken possession of those pieces of lands shall not be disposed of their interest. They shall, however, atone tenancy to the relevant stool or family as per the decision reached in this judgment and other like cases on them.” Pursuant to Exhibit TVHA 14 Series, comprising payroll records, SSNIT contributions for staff and tax paid to the state on behalf of the staff, the Appellant showed that it had managed the estate since 2007. However, the Respondents' continuous forceful control and management of the estate had created a situation of unrest, breach of public peace and potential creation of third-party interests in the estate. TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR -