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) JUDGMENT FRANKLINA GESILA ADANU, J.A: TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR - JUDGMENT 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 - JUDGMENT 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 - JUDGMENT 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 30/10/2024. 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 - JUDGMENT 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 - JUDGMENT 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 - JUDGMENT 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 - JUDGMENT 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 - JUDGMENT 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 - JUDGMENT 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 - JUDGMENT pg. 11 In respect of the second principle regarding the duty of the court in ensuring that the successful party does not have a hallow victory at the end of the day , the Appellant referred to the protection of home or property from interference which is enshrined in article 18 of the 1992 Constitution and argued that Respondents’ continuous interference with the Appellant’s rights and interests in the estate flouts their constitutional rights to ownership of property, liberty, freedom of movement and association and stands to suffer irreparable damage should the Respondents continue to perpetuate their unlawful imposition on them. The refusal to grant the application therefore emboldens the Respondents to conceal the property’s actual ownership and to continue violating its constitutional rights. In respect of the last two principles of inconvenience and hardship, the Appellant referred to paragraphs 30-36 and 40-41 of its affidavit in support of the application. In sum, it argued that the relentless efforts and intimidation tactics employed by the Respondents to impose themselves on the Appellant as managers of the estate are contrary to standard practice in the housing industry and constitute an abuse of the right and freedom of Homeowners to decide who should manage the estate for them. Having paid valuable consideration for their homes to the Respondents, homeowners are entitled to quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their homes. It emphasised that the Respondents reinforced thugs at the entrance to the estate on 30/10/2024 to forcefully take over the security of the estate from the Appellant’s security personnel but for the intervention of National Security officers. Therefore, on a balance of convenience, the Respondents stand to lose nothing if they are restrained as opposed to the Appellant whose fundamental rights, freedom and personal liberties are being trampled upon by the Respondents. TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR - JUDGMENT pg. 12 It was the case of the Respondents that the Appellant appears to suggest that the mere establishment of a prima facie case automatically entitles an applicant to an interlocutory injunction. Counsel submitted that although it was relevant, it is not the sole determinant. The overarching consideration is what is just and convenient in all the circumstances of the matter, which is the import of Order 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) as amended. In support, counsel cited S. Kwame Tetteh’s book, CIVIL PROCEDURE, A Practical Approach at page 483. The court below therefore found it more just and convenient to order an expedited trial rather than an outright grant or refusal of the injunction application. The Respondents further argued that the Appellant’s claim of legal title requires scrutiny as it is based on a misinterpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision and its effects on the properties completed and sold to the homeowners. The Appellant cannot therefore rely on that decision to displace the existing association and further claim ownership of the common areas, including the entrance to the estate. He argued further that the Appellant had not produced any evidence of attornment of tenancy by the members of the Appellant to the Nungua Stool or any evidence of any action by the Nungua Stool to displace the 1st Respondent’s rights to its properties or those of the Appellant. Under the circumstances, the trial Judge was justified in ordering an early trial rather than a grant or refusal of an application for injunction which otherwise could have a far-reaching consequence on the parties in the meantime. Respondents' counsel further argued that: “… the evidence establishes that the estate has been managed since 2008 by the Trasacco Valley Phase 1 Homeowners Association formed by the 1st Respondent and registered in that year…” In response to the events of 30/10/2024, the Respondents stated that they were compelled to take steps to subvert any attempts at imposing a rival TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR - JUDGMENT pg. 13 Association on the estate and subvert any attempt to change the face, nature and character of the estate entrance. To ensure a smooth subversion, the Respondents say that it placed its professional security at the estate entrance to ensure that the estate is not changed and access to and exit from the estate is not impeded. My Lords, it is settled by a plethora of authorities that if the damage, real or anticipated, can be remedied by the award of damages, the grant of interlocutory injunction would be needless. Critically, once it is established that there is a serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience as codified under Order 25 of C.I. 47 as “just and convenient in all the circumstances of the matter” must be considered. The learned authors of Halsbury’s Laws of England Vol. 24, 4th ed. define the term “just and convenient” in paragraph 819 at page 427 as: “The words “just and convenient” in a statutory provision do not mean that the Court can grant an injunction simply because it thinks it convenient, but means that it should grant an injunction for the protection of a right or the prevention of injury according to legal principles. They confer neither arbitrary nor unregulated discretion on the courts and do not authorise it to invent new modes of enforcing judgments in substitution for the ordinary modes.” (Emphasis mine) In the case of Vanderpuye v. Nartey [1977] 1 GLR 428 at 432, the principle for the grant of interlocutory injunction was stated thus: “The governing principle should be whether on the face of the affidavits there is need to preserve the status quo to avoid irreparable damage to the applicant and provided his claim is not frivolous or vexatious. The question for consideration in that regard resolves itself into whether on balance greater harm would be done by refusal to grant the application than not. It is not whether a prima facie case however qualified and with whatever epithet, has been made.” TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR - JUDGMENT pg. 14 In this case, the need for an interlocutory injunction arose as a result of the Appellant’s attempt to install the electronic bloom gate at the entrance of the estate, which called into question who has the right to manage the estate. It was deposed on behalf of the Appellant (page 12 of the Record of Appeal) at paragraph 11 of the affidavit in support of its application for the interlocutory injunction that: “The Homeowners who purchased their properties during that period (1997- 2000) executed a by-law which states that the Defendants will manage the estate for a fixed duration of five (5) years following the sale of the first property. The intent was to enable the Defendant to develop the estate and provide security while waiting for enough homes to be built and sold so that the homeowners can take care of the management of the estate on their own. Please find attached and marked as “Exhibit TVHA 2” a copy of the said by-law.” The above was borne out by Article 1, section 1 (2) (f) of the undated and unsigned Trasaaco Valley Phase I By-laws which interpreted the “Declarant Control Period” “as the period prior to the earliest of: “i. the date on which seventy-five (75) percent or more of the total number of Houses have been handed over to Homeowners; ii. five (five) years after the first House in the Estate is handed over to a Homeowner, or iii. the date specified by the Declarant in a notice to the Association that the Declarant Control Period is to terminate on that date.” This by-law covered phase 1 homeowners whose homes were built and sold between 1997 and 2000. TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR - JUDGMENT pg. 15 The Respondents also attached another undated by-law to their affidavit in opposition to the application for interlocutory injunction, Exhibit D comprising a sub-lease to a homeowner in 2005 and by-laws of Trasacco Valley simpliciter signed by Ernesto Taricone for the 1st Respondent. This by-law is clearly different from the Appellant’s Exhibit TVHA 2 as the titles and layouts are materially different. Additionally, the interpretation section did not impose any restriction on the management of the estate by the 1st Respondent. Evidently, this was a new version of the original by-law prepared by the same 1st Respondent. It also bears noting that the 1st Respondent took steps to register the Association in 2008 as per Exhibits B and C, as Trasacco Valley Phase I Homeowners Association’s certificate to commence business and certificate of incorporation dated 29/07/2008 and 28/07/2008 respectively. The Respondents never commented on the Appellant’s Exhibit TVHA 2, which implies a tacit admission of the fact that the original by -law limited the Respondents’ management of the estate to a period of 5 years, but which was circumvented by the new by-law attached to the 2005 sublease. When a person has made a material averment and the averment has not been denied, the party against whom the averment was made was presumed to have admitted that averment sub silentio and that the proponent needed not further prove that averment. See Hammond v Amuah (1991) 1 GLR 89. This principle was also illustrated in Ibrahim v. Abubakari [2001-2002] 1 GLR 540 as follows: “…if the respondent in his affidavit in opposition did not deny specifically a particular allegation of fact contained in a supporting affidavit or did not answer the point of substance in the supporting affidavit, he was deemed to have admitted the fact”. (Emphasis mine) TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR - JUDGMENT pg. 16 Notwithstanding the disparities in both the caption and content of the by-laws, the Appellant contends that until 2023, they have been managing the estate since 2007 without any hinderance until the Respondents failed attempt to take over same in 2023 pursuant to which they stationed thugs at the entrance to the estate to interfere with security protocols observed by the Appellant’s trained security guards in charge of the entrance to the estates since 2007. In the supplementary affidavit pursuant to leave of court filed on 30/04/2025, the Appellant again attached Exhibit TVHA14 series comprising some of the Appellant’s employee payroll records, SSNIT contribution s for employees, pension fund contributions for employees and application income tax paid to the state on behalf of the said employees. What constitutes proof in law has been dilated in cases like Majolagbe v. Larbi and Ors. [1959] GLR 190, which recommends documentary evidence. An examination of this exhibit shows that indeed, the Appellant’s Association formerly known as TVHA was in place and has been managing the estate, but not before the Respondents incorporated Trasacco Valley Phase I Homeowners Association on 28/07/2008, as none of the documents in exhibit TVHA 14 series predated 2008. The closest is 2016. The Respondents, on the contrary, did not adduce any evidence in support of their management of the estate. In the case of Guardian Assurance v. Kyat Trading Store [1972] 2 GLR 48 at 55, Amissah J.A. held that: “… the supportive evidence of an opponent is as strong as the documentary evidence of the other party in proof of the latter’s case.” In Kojach Limited v. MultiChoice Ghana Limited [2014] DLSC 2936, the Supreme Court dismissed Kojach’s appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the interlocutory injunction on the basis that the trial judge’s discretion had been exercised under a misapprehension of material facts TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR - JUDGMENT pg. 17 (including inadequate consideration of affidavit evidence on the defendant’s role). The Honourable Court, per Anin Yeboah JSC (as he then was), pronounced that an appellate court may interfere with a trial court’s discretion on interlocutory injunctions where it was exercised on wrong, inadequate or misapprehended material facts; where affidavit evidence reveals vital factual conflicts, the court should provide an opportunity for cross-examination of the deponents before resolving those conflicts in a way that underpins interlocutory relief. The test for interlocutory injunction should be framed as whether there is a serious question to be tried, and the court should avoid premature merits determination. An appellate court is at all times extremely cautious when it comes to disturbing the findings of fact made by a trial judge. The cardinal principle that guides the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction is that an appellate court must be slow to overturn findings of fact made by the trial court. Indeed, unless it is demonstrated that the findings of the trial court are perverse, or cannot be supported by the evidence, same ought not, as a general rule, be disturbed on appeal, see: In Re Okine (Decd); Dodoo and Anor v. Okine and Ors [2003-2005] 1 GLR 630. Therefore, where the record shows that proper evaluation has been made by the trial court, the appellate court must not substitute its own views. In the case of Ackah v. Pergah Transport Ltd [2010] SCGLR 728 , the Supreme Court reiterated its admonition that the appellate court must exercise restraint particularly in instances where the trial judge has carefully reviewed and balanced the competing affidavit material. However, in this case, the court below exercised its discretion wrongly by misapprehending the facts as it failed in balancing the affidavit evidence on the side of both parties. It is no part of the court’s function at this stage of the litigation to try to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavits as to facts. However, TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR - JUDGMENT pg. 18 if the court considered that there were factual conflicts in the parties' affidavit evidence, it was well within its power to have called for the cross-examination of the deponents to resolve any such factual conflicts so that the interlocutory application is determined decisively. As Lord Diplock stated in the case of American Cyanamid (supra) at page 509 of the judgment: “In those cases where the legal rights of the parties depend on facts that are in dispute between them, the evidence available to the court at the hearing of the application for an interlocutory injunction is incomplete. It is given on affidavit and has not been tested by oral cross-examination. The purpose sought to be achieved by giving to the court discretion to grant such injunctions would be stultified if the discretion were clogged by a technical rule forbidding its exercise if on that incomplete untested evidence, the court evaluated the chances of the plaintiff’s ultimate success in the action at 50 per cent or less, but permitting its exercise if the court evaluated his chances at more than 50 percent.” The Appellant’s action is neither frivolous nor vexatious. It is our observation that there are obviously serious issues to be tried in the substantive case. Looking at the totality of the admitted affidavit evidence, the balance of inconvenience tilts in favour of the Appellant, who are entitled to the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their acquired homes as enshrined in the 1992 Constitution. The Appellant has also shown by documentary evidence that they have been managing the estate for a long time, a fact which the court below glossed over. There is therefore the need to preserve the status quo by allowing the Appellant to continue with the management of the estate until the substantive case is wholly determined. Hiding behind order 25 Rule 5of C.I. 47 only because under paragraph 41 of the Appellant affidavit in support of the application, it was deposed that in the TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR - JUDGMENT pg. 19 unlikely event that the interlocutory 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 30th October, 2024” to order for expedited trial defeats the essence of the interlocutory injunctions, particularly when the safeguards provided for the early trial regarding the place and mode of the trial were conspicuously missing from the orders of the court. In essence, no effective remedy was provided by the court below. The risk of breach of peace cannot be a standalone ground to grant an early trial under Order 25 Rule 5 of C.I. 47, but it must be taken into consideration in conjunction with other factors to determine whether or not an expedited trial should be granted or not in the circumstances of each peculiar application for interlocutory injunction. The very point of interlocutory injunctions is to reduce the risk to the plaintiff that flows from the uncertainty inherent before the trial. As Lord Diplock explained at page 406 of the American Cyanamid case (supra), that: “My Lords, when an application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain a defendant from doing acts alleged to be in violation of the plaintiff’s legal right is made on contested facts, the decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when ex hypothesis the existence of the right or the violation of it, or both, is uncertain and will remain uncertain until final judgment is given in the action. It was to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertainty could be resolved that the practice arose of granting him relief by way of interlocutory injunction …” (Emphasis mine) The mere claim that there is a risk of breach of peace or violence breaking out should not sway a court to grant or refuse the interlocutory relief. In Frimpong v. Nana Asare Obeng II (1974) GLR 16, it was held by Edward Wiredu J. that: TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR - JUDGMENT pg. 20 “the likelihood of there being a breach of peace was not a legal ground for granting injunction.” Such an imminent risk, if any, must be assessed in light of the case presented by both parties to determine whether there are serious questions to be tried and, if so, in whose favour does the balance of inconvenience swing, which should result in the determination of the application one way or the other. In this case, the mere purported risk of violence breaking out should not have swayed the court into determining the application for interlocutory injunction by invoking Order 25 Rule 5. Having had regard to the admitted affidavit evidence and the statements of case of the parties, we are satisfied that the Appellant has made a case for the grant of the injunction in line with the matters set out in decided cases. The application ought therefore to be granted, in order to maintain the status quo ante until the final determination of the suit before the court. The Appellant should solely continue with the management of the estate pending the determination of the substantive suit. The electronic bloom gate at the entrance shall remain uninstalled until the substantive suit has been determined. The first Respondent is hereby ordered to withdraw forthwith its security at the entrance of the estate as well as within the estate pending the final determination of the substantive action. 6.0 Disposition The appeal is accordingly allowed; the ruling of the trial High Court dated 8/07/2025 is hereby, in consequence, set aside; and the interlocutory injunction sought by the appellant is hereby granted. We award costs of GHC 20,000.00 against the Respondents in favour of the Appellant. TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR - JUDGMENT pg. 21 SGD FRANKLINA GESILA ADANU (MRS.) (JUSTICE OF APPEAL) I AGREE SGD JEROME NOBLE-NKRUMAH (JUSTICE OF APPEAL) I ALSO AGREE SGD MARY MAAME EKUE YANZUH (MRS) (JUSTICE OF APPEAL) COUNSEL: OPOKU AMPONSAH FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT CHARLES OKYERE KWAPONG FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS TVHA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LBG V. EMPIRE BUILDERS LIMITED & ANOR - JUDGMENT pg. 22