R U L I N G
I have examined all the process filed in the suit and have heard the parties and it is not in dispute that the plaintiff has remained in the possession of the property he is occupying for (17) seventeen years after his purported termination of employment.
The basic consideration that is used to determine an application of such nature is whether it appears to the court just or convenient to do. For a court to satisfy itself as to whether it is just or convenient to grant the Applicant’s application, the court is required to examine whether or not the applicant has a right either in law or equity and must be protected by the court. Where it is established that the applicant has a right to protect either in law or equity, the next consideration is the hardship or the inconvenience that the Applicant would suffer. See the case of Owusu v. Owusu Ansah [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR and Pountney v. Doegah [1987-88] 1 GLR 111.
The Applicant has been occupying a duty post accommodation for 17 …