Stop holding out yourself as Bishop of Damascus Christian Church Int-High Court to Prophet Micheal Fordjour
The Plaintiffs, Damascus Christian Church Int. (1st Plaintiff) and Bishop Benjamin Badu Fordjour(2nd plaintiff) filed a suit on February 21, 2021, at the High Court, Accra, against Daniel Appiah Fordjour(1st Defendant), Joyce Fordjour(2nd Defendant), Prophet Micheal Fordjour(3rd Defendant), and Benjamin Fordjour(4th Defendant), seeking the following reliefs:
The High Court, presided over by Her Ladyship Eudora Christina Dadson(MRS) has restrained Prophet Micheal Fordjour from holding himself out as the Bishop of the Damascus Christian Church International, Opposite West Hills Mall in Accra, until the final determination of the suit.
It also restrained the applicants from creating any third-party interest in the affairs of the church as well as change its current leadership structure until the suit is finally determined.
The above is contained in the ruling of the court on a MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION filed in the name of Damascus Christian Church Int. (1st Applicant) and Bishop Benjamin Badu Fordjour(2nd applicant) on February 3, 2021.
The applicants sought an order of the court to restrain the respondents from holding out Prophet Micheal Fordjour(3rd Respondent) as the Bishop of the Church and from interfering in the affairs of the applicants (The church and Bishop Benjamin Badu Fordjour), pending the final determination of the suit.
FACTS OF THE APPLICATION
Bishop Benjamin Badu Fordjour(2nd applicant) indicated to the court that he had been duly elected and consecrated Bishop, and certified per the constitution of the church(Damascus Christian Church Int.)
Also, he noted that he was one of the four Prophets/Apostles of the Church who were qualified to be elected Bishop of the Church after the death of the Founder on January 26, 2020.
However, the 3rd respondent(Prophet Micheal Fordjour) has been made the Bishop of the Church by the other respondents according to an alleged Will of the Founder.
Bishop Fordjour disagrees with this arrangement, arguing that the church is not personal property and hence cannot be subject to a disposition in a Will neither can a leader of such an organization be elected outside the Constitution.
The respondents however opposed to all the above assertions of Bishop Fordjour and further alleged that he is unknown to the church and has not been a major contributor to the activities of the church. Rather, they have consistently supported the activities of the church.
RULING
The court granted the application. Thereby restraining the respondents, their agents, assigns, workmen, and the Prophet Micheal Fordjour(3rd Respondent) from holding himself as Bishop of the Church until the final determination of the suit.
Also, it equally restrained the applicants their agents, assigns, and workmen from creating third-party interest in the church as well as change the current leadership structure.
SUBSTANTIVE SUIT
The Plaintiffs, Damascus Christian Church Int. (1st Plaintiff) and Bishop Benjamin Badu Fordjour(2nd plaintiff) filed a suit on February 21, 2021, at the High Court, Accra, against Daniel Appiah Fordjour(1st Defendant), Joyce Fordjour(2nd Defendant), Prophet Micheal Fordjour(3rd Defendant), and Benjamin Fordjour(4th Defendant), seeking the following reliefs:
a.A declaration that Damascus Christian Church International as a Company limited by guarantee, cannot be devised in a last will of the Founder.
b.A declaration that once a Church is a Company Limited by Guarantee, upon the demise of its leader, it is the Constitution of the Church that governs the Church including the succession to the leadership of the Church.
c.A declaration that by the Constitution of the Church, the 3rd Defendant does not qualify to be a leader of the church in the absence of the founder.
d.A declaration that the 2nd Plaintiff being part of the qualified persons to be elected as Leader has been duly elected and consecrated as the next leader of the 1st Plaintiff upon the death of the Founder.
The court has meanwhile ordered both the plaintiffs and defendants to file an undertaking as to damages and statements of defence respectively.