JUDGEMENT
BY COURT:
The Plaintiff issued this writ
on 26th February,
2004 against two defendants
jointly and severally for the
following reliefs which have
been quoted verbatim.
1.
That the Court Orders that
Plaintiff leased a plot from
late Oye Codjoe alias Dunkrong
Amartiokor and the Plaintiff
from his own resource built
House No. B 672 on the leased
plot situate lying and being at
Abossey Okai.
2.
That the lease is still in
subsistence.
3.
That an order for account of all
monies accruing to the Estate of
Deceased who died on 11th
July, 1987 up to the date of
Judgement.
4.
Alternatively the refund of the
money Plaintiff paid to the
lessor and money spent to put up
the house plus interest on the
whole amount.
5.
An order for injunction not to
distribute the Estate without
reference to the Plaintiff.
6.
General Damages for interfering
with the enjoyment of the
Plaintiff lease.
7.
An order that the Plaintiff is
joint owner of the House No. B
627/6 with late Oye Codjoe alias
Dunkrong Amartiokor.
8.
The Court order that the cost be
awarded against the Defendants.
9.
Damages for breach of contract
and misrepresentation.
The first defendant died in the
course of the trial, so the suit
was prosecuted against the 2nd
defendant. In the amended
Statement of Claim filed on 12th
April, 2009, the plaintiff
claimed to have a building plot
leased orally from one Oye
Codjoe, a fetish priestess who
is also known as Dunkrong
Amartiorkor, at Abossey Okai for
50 years. The purpose of the
oral grant was for the building
of two story commercial
building. According to the
plaintiff’s pleading he paid
total rent of ¢120,000.00 for
the 50 years and a customary
drink of ¢200.00 i.e. GH¢0.02.
According to the plaintiff, when
he commenced the building to
foundation level men from City
Engineers demolished it, and
informed him that there was
litigation on the plot and that
it will be in his interest to
put up only a one story
building.
In 1987, the lessor died. The
defendants applied for letters
of Administration to administer
the estate of Oye Codjoe but he
the plaintiff issued a caveat as
the defendants are interfering
with the plaintiff’s use of the
plot by renting the adjoining
plot.
The defendants denied the
plaintiff’s claim and
counter-claimed for the
following:
a)
A declaration that the lease
agreement under which plaintiff
entered the land had long
expired.
b)
Ejectment and recovery of
possession of the land from
plaintiff.
Even though there is no
indication on the temporary
docket that directions filed on
11th November 2004
had been taken, on 15th
January, 2009, the plaintiff’s
Counsel said from his docket,
directions was taken on 24th
November, 2004. This was said
in the presence of defence
counsel, who could not confirm
or deny, since he never had that
information.
Though eight issues including
any other issues were set down
as the issues for trial, none of
them can properly be said to be
an issue from the pleadings,
considering the way the
endorsement and the stateme |