HOME         UNREPORTED  CASES OF THE COURT

 OF

AUTHOMATED COURTS ACCRA 

 

         

      IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT

             OF JUSTICE (LAND COURT DIVISION) HELD IN ACCRA ON

              THURSDAY 27TH  OCTOBER 2011. BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE ANTHONY OPPONG J.

                                                       __________________________________

 

SUIT NO. E1/21/2007

 

KWEINOR TEYE KWABLA                                  }                                PLAINTIFF                                                                     

 

                              VS.

 

NENE KWAKU DARPOH & 2 ORS.                       }                               DEFENDANTS                                                                    

 

_____________________________________________________________

 

                                                   J    U    D    G   M    E    N   T

         ______________________________________________________________

 

Plaintiff, who claims to be the head of Forzie family of Terkpanya old Ningo, on his own behalf and on behalf of the said family instituted the instant action claiming declaration of title, perpetual injunction and general damages against 1st and 3rd defendants as well as declaration that a vesting assent dated 24th February 2005 executed in favour of 1st defendant be pronounced null and void and of no effect and also prayed for an order cancelling the said vesting assent. There is yet another relief against 3rd defendant to the effect that a lease document executed by 3rd defendant dated 10th October 2004 be declared null and void and a further order directed at 2nd defendant (Lands Commission) to expunge the plotting and the registration of the lease document from their records.

Plaintiff averred that his forefathers are the beneficial and legal owners of a large tract of land at Terkpanya which land is bounded by the Tema Aflao motorway on the North, the Prampram Traditional Lands

 

(site for proposed road on the West); by the TA River on the South-East by the Dangbe Lagoon; on the East and by the Lakpleku Osabunya family lands.

            He claimed his forefathers acquired the land through settlement over 300 years ago and have since been in possession by rearing of cattle and farming food crops and have also constructed a big dam which serves as a source of water for the inhabitants of old Ningo and its surrounding villages till date.

            In addition, plaintiff averred that, the Forzie family has established 40 settlements or sub-villages some of which were named as Akahie, Namoe, & Mglame and Kpobino.

            Plaintiff averred further that the Forzie family has spent a lot of money in terms of maintaining and developing structures on the land including 33 bedroom houses on portions of the land as well as fortifying structures around eight (8) shrines in the village.

            Plaintiff averred that a vesting assent dated 24th February 2005 which is numbered V 4018 and registered as AR 3036/2005 made in favour of 3rd defendant affected a portion of his family land and that none of his predecessors or any member of his family has granted any portion of the land  to any person or group of persons for the latter to execute any vesting assent in favour of 1st defendant.

            Plaintiff averred that another document, a lease dated 10th October 2004 plotted as No. V5380 and registered as No. AR No. 7898/2005 executed by 3rd defendant affected a portion of the family land and that neither his predecessors, himself nor any member of  Forzie family has ever executed any lease agreement or any document to the 3rd defendant.

            It is on these premises that plaintiff has sought declaration of title, perpetual injunction, damages for trespass against 1st and 3rd defendants and

 

has also prayed for cancellation of the vesting assent and the lease document.

            1st defendant who claims to be the chief of Dawhenya and also the head and lawful representative of the Arden and Darpoh family of Dawhenya denied plaintiff’s claims.

1st defendant averred that that portion of the disputed land which falls before mile post 30, as determined by the Jackson Proceedings and Report of

1956, lies within Prampram Lands and that the plaintiff being a native of Ningo cannot lay claim to any portion of Prampram Lands, and that following the publication of the Jackson report, boundary pillars were erected along the Prampram-Ningo boundary along mile 30, and the pillars have remained in existence up to date. 1st defendant averred that plaintiff’s family has never challenged the Jackson Report and the boundary pillars erected along the mile post 30.

            1st defendant then pleaded estoppel by conduct and estoppel by laches and acquiescience, contending that plaintiff is estopped from denying that the portion of the disputed land which falls before mile post 30 are within Prampram Lands and cannot be claimed by a Ningo native.

            1st defendant averred that the Arden and Darpoh family who emerged from Olowe-Charwenya clan who first settled on a vacant land they christened Ososhie village acquired the disputed land many years ago.

            As a result of growth of the people, 1st defendant averred, the Ososhie village expanded in size to encompass the area near the Dawhenya stream where one of the ancestors called Nii Kwablah Arden first erected a house for one of his wives by name Maa Esmay to sell Kenkey to travelling traders who plied the route on foot.

            Thereafter the Arden and Darpoh family continued in undisturbed and unchallenged possession and occupation of the said land and through

 

farming and cattle rearing activities expanded their land to such areas as Kokoome-Kpo, Bulaaso, Gmaku-dor, Santo-dor, Taa-dor and Ladoku.

            1st defendant contended that plaintiff’s family has no land in the area before mile post 30 and that plaintiff‘s family has no proprietory title or interest whatsoever in the disputed land or any part thereof, contending further that the area plaintiff described as Terkpanya lies far away in Ningo a

substantial distance away from mile post 30, i.e, the Prampram-Ningo border.

            1st defendant vouched for the propriety of the Vesting Assent as having come from the Arden and Darpoh family who are beneficial owners of the land under reference herein.

1st defendant emphasized that the disputed land which lies before mile post 30 is the bona fide and legitimate property of Arden and Darpoh family, whose ancestors acquired same by settlement many years ago and have since exercised overt acts of ownership thereon without let or hindrance.

In pursuance of their ownership, 1st defendant  averred that the family has made various grants to many persons and institutions including Western Ally Company Ltd, one Emmanuel Armah and Central University College.

The aforesaid grant to the Central University College was effected in collaboration with the 3rd defendant.

1st defendant alluded to judicial proceedings/decisions wherein the fact of the Arden and Darpoh family’s ownership of the disputed land lying before mile post 30 was pronounced upon and/or acknowledged.

In the premises, 1st defendant, in his capacity as head and/or lawful representative of the Arden and Darpoh family counterclaimed for declaration of title to all that tract of land known as Arden and Darpoh family land bounded on the North by the Tema-Aflao motor road, on the

 

 

East by Ningo-Prampram boundary from pillar BIS EP/14/55/26 (mile 30), on the South by Numo Awuley Kwao family (miotso), on the west by Arden

 and Darpoh family land; damages for trespass and perpetual injunction.

3rd defendant also denied plaintiff’s claims. It was stated that 3rd defendant is the head and lawful representative of Awuley Kwao family of Miotso in Prampram and that the entire land between Central University college at mile 27 leading eastwards up to mile 30 belongs to Awuley Kwao family and neither plaintiff nor 1st defendant owns any land there.

3rd defendant averred that by the Jackson Report, land belonging to Prampram ends at mile 30 and the area of Ningo commences after mile 30.

 It was further stated by 3rd defendant that the Jackson report which was

published in the Gazette Extraordinary (No. 52) of 3rd August, 1956 the land falls within the range of mile 22 to mile 30, being the boundary between Prampram and Ningo lands, contending that natives of Ningo cannot therefore claim land within the perimeter of mile 22 to mile 30.

3rd defendant averred further that the Awuley Kwao family has granted over seven hundred acres of land within the vesting assent area of Kwaku Darpoh I as it’s family land to one Tony Alhassan Adams for which reason the 1st defendant had by a letter dated 11th April, 2006 written to the regional Lands Officer to plot same notwithstanding the 1st defendant’s registered vesting assent.

At the close of pleadings the following issues were set down as the issues for trial. They were:-

 

(i)            Whether or not plaintiff’s ancestral family settled on the disputed land well over 300 years ago.

 

(ii)          Whether or not 1st defendant’s family, that is the Arden and Darpoh family acquird the disputed land by settlement many years ago.

 

 

(iii)         Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to his claim.

 

(iv)         Whether or not the 1st defendant is entitled to his counterclaim.

 

(v)          Whether or not the Jackson Report as published in the Gazette in 1956  affected plaintiff’s family’s occupation of the disputed land.

 

(vi)         Whether or not the plaintiff’s family shares common boundary with Prampram beyond mile 30 or at the site earmarked for the construction of the National Olympic Stadium.

 

(vii)        Whether or not the Two vesting assents prepared by 1st and 3rd defendants are void and should be expunged from the record of the 2nd defendant.

 

It may be observed that, essentially the consideration of issues (i),

(iii), (v) and (vi) relates to the determination of the plaintiff’s claim, to wit, whether or not the plaintiff has any title to the disputed land, whilst the consideration of issues (ii) and (iv) would relate to the determination of 1st defendant’s claim, namely, whether or not the 1st defendant is entitled to his counterclaim,  thus leaving issue (vii), namely whether or not the 2nd defendant are liable to be expunged for being null and void.

            By way of preliminary remark, it must be noted that 2nd defendant (Lands Commission) did not participate in this case, quite apart from entering appearance. Perhaps, as has been their trademark in cases of this nature whereby they are being called to cancel and expunge title deeds, they can but wait to abide the outcome and the direction of the court.

            In the case of GHANA MUSLIMS RE PRESENTATIVE COUNCIL VS. SALIFU (1975) 2 GLR 246 the Court of Appeal in holding 3 of the report posited that “In a representative action it was necessary, both in the writ and in all subsequent pleadings, to state clearly that the parties were suing or were being sued in their representative capacity, on behalf of the members of

a defined class. The representative capacity should also be stated in the title of both the writ and the statement of claim and not merely in the endorsement of the writ on the body of the pleadings”. Relying on this holding coupled with the provision in Order 2 Rule 4 (1) (a) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C. 1. 47), learned lawyer for 1st defendant submitted that plaintiff’s case is deserving of dismissal in limine in that the plaintiff failed to comply with the law pertaining to representative action, having failed to disclose the representative capacity on the endorsement on the writ and the statement of claim.

            On the face of the endorsement on the writ plaintiff actually failed to indicate the representative capacity which failure is sinful of the laid down law but in the statement of claim filed on 14th February 2007, the same cannot be said. That is to say , paragraph 1 of the statement of claim clearly stated that plaintiff was suing as the head of the Forzie family of  Terkpenya Old Ningo on behalf of himself and on behalf of the said family. In my view paragraph one of the statement of claim effectively cured the defect on the endorsement. At any rate the evidence adduced in court clearly showed the representative capacity by which the action was instituted. Therefore, it will not be apposite to dismiss the plaintiff’s case in limine as contended by learned lawyer for 1st defendant in his address.

            Let us consider plaintiff’s case. In the pleadings, plaintiff alluded to various acts of possession and ownership that required proof. For instance, plaintiff averred that they have about 8 shrines on the disputed land, about 40 settlements or sub-villages, some of which were specifically named, 33 bedroom houses not forgetting the averment that members of their family have been farming and rearing cattle on the land. It therefore beats my

 

 

understanding for plaintiff to have conducted the case in the manner I find. That is to say, besides the rather curt evidence of PW1, Nene Tomotei

Zuta V who said plaintiff is his cousin and that the disputed land belongs to the Tei Kwabla Forzie family, plaintiff did not consider it even necessary let alone calling even a single person on any of those settlements, houses or shrines to give evidence in support in the face of the challenge inherent in the cases of 1st and 3rd defendants. What surprises me the more is the fact that plaintiff had asked for a declaratory relief and he was required to prove his case, though on the preponderance of the probabilities but assumed a rather onerous burden of convincing the court that he deserves being decreed the owner of the land

            That is to say that proof on the balance of probabilities is flexible in its application. In particular, the more serious the allegation or the more serious the consequences if the allegation was proved, the stronger the evidence had to be before a court would find the allegation proved on the balance of the probabilities. In my view this position of the law is what is crytallised in Sections 11 (4), 12 and 14 of the Evidence Decree, 1975

(Act 323).

            In this case, plaintiff prayed for declaration of title; if plaintiff proved his case, it would have serious consequences for the 1st and 3rd defendants and their privies and in fact such a declaration will reign against everybody on this earth except a person or an entity that can prove superior or better title. Such a claim is therefore not proved lightly. Plaintiff was therefore required to put on record any conceivable permissible evidence that could convince the court to declare him the owner of the disputed land. It is therefore mind-boggling to concede that plaintiff failed to pay heed to the salutary advice offered by Ollennu in the case of MAJOLAGBE VS. LARBI

AND OTHERS (1959) GLR 190, to wit, where corroborative evidence must exist, the court expects a party who makes an averment (which the other side denies) to call such corroborative evidence in support of his own. Plaintiff

had alleged that his family members and/or farmers who are on the disputed land at their instance are on the land farming and rearing cattle but he failed to call even a single farmer or cattle owner to testify to corroborate his case, especially when such allegations have been denied.

            In my humble view, plaintiff neglected to adduce sufficient cogent evidence pertaining to overt acts of ownership of the land he is claiming. This is fatal to his claim. Plaintiff who goes to court to claim declaration of title relying on traditional evidence, as pertained in this case, must ensure that he puts on record acts of possession and ownership as a significant step to convincing the court on the preponderance of the probabilities that he deserves to be decreed the owner of the disputed land.

            The plaintiff in this case miserably failed to discharge the onus of proof on him.

            On the contrary, there exist certain events on record that expose the falsity of the claim of plaintiff to the extent that plaintiff wanted the court to believe that their land ends at mile 27.

            The most noticeable event that comes to mind is the Boundary Settlement Commission into Shai-Ningo-Prampram Lands conducted by Jackson (one time High Court Judge of the land) on or about the year 1954.

It is quite evident on record that Tekpenya is in Ningo and plaintiff hails from Ningo. Yet, plaintiff is laying claim to land, vast portions of which, if not all, fall within Prampram.

At any rate, the borders of Prampram and Ningo have been conclusively determined by Commissioner Jackson whose Report received Gazette notification in 1956 as per Exhibit ‘2’ and Exhibit ‘3D2’

           ( The two are in actual fact the same).

 

Besides, the composite plan tendered into evidence as Exhibit ‘2’ showed the boundary between Ningo and Prampram at mile 30. Indeed when the surveyor was being cross-examined he admitted that Exhibit ‘1’

was consistent with the Jackson Report as far as the boundary between Prampram and Ningo is concerned. The surveyor who had been at the site agreed that the boundary between the Ningos and Pramprams is at mile 30.

At this point I may be permitted to refer to what transpired at the cross-examination:-

“Q.       Now this survey plan you referred to as a site plan being incorporated in the Jackson Report, the site plan indicates

           the boundaries between prampram and Ningo Lands.

A.        Yes that is correct.

Q.        And that boundary is captured in your report as mile post 30.

A.        Yes my Lord.

Q.        And on the left side of mile post 30 is Prampram Land.

A.        That is so.

Q.        And on the right side are Ningo Stool Land.

A.        That is correct my Lord.

Q.        And it is true that the plaintiff which is Ningo the land that he showed you part of it falls within the part indicated in your report as belonging to Prampram Stool Land.

A.        That is so my Lord”

It could be gleaned from this intercourse that plaintiff’s case is bound to crumble in that plaintiff  as Ningo cannot purport to claim Prampram Land, the boundary between the two having been settled at pillar marked G.C.S.L.B.S. ED. 14/55/26 (30 MILE STONE).

Plaintiff’s only witness conceded that there is a boundary between the people of Ningo and the people of Prampram but he said he disagreed with

 

the boundary as demarcated by Commissioner Jackson. Indeed, plaintiff himself also conceded that there is a clear distinction between Ningo Land and Prampram Land and that the two lands share common boundary.

I am not oblivious of the fact that per their reply filed on 18th April 2007 and in the evidence plaintiff made strenuous efforts to repudiate the validity of the Jackson report. I am afraid it is not permissible for plaintiff to purport to attack the validity of Exhibits ‘2’ and ‘3D2’ in the manner they went about it. At any rate, are the plaintiffs not estopped from now challenging the validity and the propriety of the Jackson Report, this Report having been duly gazetted in 1956 to the knowledge of plaintiffs or of which plaintiffs can be said to have had constructive notice ?  I am of the view that if plaintiff was dissatisfied with the Report the proper step for him to have taken was to have instituted an action by way of a writ or judicial review for redress. He will not be permitted in this proceedings to express disagreement and expect the court to throw away the Jackson Report.

Apaloo J. A. in the case of AMEODA VS. PORDIER (1967) GLR 479 at 483 had occasion to comment on the personality and the profile of Jackson with respect to the report. He said Mr. Jackson was, for a considerable time, a judge of the High Court of this country and until recently, a land boundary settlement commissioner. He added that “Mr. Jackson determined the boundaries of the lands of Shai, Ningo and Prampram”. He also added that Jackson’s “findings” were published in the Gazette Extraordinary (No. 52) of 3 August 1956. This was what was tendered herein as Exhibits ‘2’ and “3D2”.

From the foregoing, it is clear that plaintiff’s case as I find on record does not warrant that he should be declared the owner of the land in dispute. Indeed, plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought. Accordingly, plaintiff’s case fails and same is dismissed.

 

1st defendant who counterclaimed for declaration of title, among other reliefs, and has thus put himself a position of plaintiff required to prove his case in accordance with Sections 11 (4), 12 and 14 of Act 323. Indeed in the case of EFFISAH VS. ANSAH (2005-2006) SCGLR 943, the Supreme Court formulated the principle of law thus:-

“The court have drifted away from the Kodilinge 

  principle, namely that the plaintiff must rely on the  

  strength of his own case and not rely on the weakness of

 the defendant’s case; and had rather tilted towards the

 need for proof on the balance of probabilities in actions for title to land as provided under Section 11 (4) and (12) of the Evidence Decree, NRCD 323”

1st defendant traced the history of his family’s root of title to the disputed land and produced evidence to show that since his family members first settled on the disputed land they have been in exclusive and undisturbed possession and occupation thereof till date. 1st defendant in support of his case called three witnesses who essentially sought to corroborate the claim of 1st defendant.

An evaluation of the evidence adduced by 1st defendant as a whole attracts the case of 1st defendant towards success. However this attraction,  to a very large extent is grossly dulled in the face of the composite plan produced and tendered into court as Exhibit’1’

It is evident that the parties herein have their respective lands. That is to say plaintiff as a family of Ningo has its family land but their suit failed because of lack of cogent evidence to prove their case coupled with their claim purporting to put their land beyond mile 30 into the land of Prampram. Between 1st defendant and 3rd defendant however, the main issue had to do with the exact boundary as between their respective lands.

 

Even though both 1st defendant and 3rd defendant agreed that the Prampram-Ningo boundary converges at mile 30 and this agreement is in accord with the finding of the court, 3rd defendant sharply disagreed with the 1st defendant’s contention regarding where the boundary between them lies.

It is instructive however to note that 3rd defendant’s representative speaking as a lawful attorney emphatically stated that the disputed area is called Meotwo. Therefore, the fact that the area where the Central University College is located is called Meotwo lands credence to the claim of 3rd defendant in contrast to the claim of 1st defendant.

In Exhibit ‘1’, mentioned  a while ago, the land as shown on the site plan of 1st defendant  marked yellow stretches beyond mile 30 and far into the land belonging to the Ningos. Even on the same composite plan, the land shown by 1st defendant protruded into the land of the plaintiff, beyond mile 30. This certainly bristled at 1st defendant’s case in no small measure.

That is to say, 1st defendant cannot claim land that protrudes or otherwise overlaps into the land of the Ningo if Exhibit ‘1’ and Jackson Report are anything to go by.

By 1st defendant’s showing, their counter claim initially related to 9,404.28 acres, the same size of land plaintiff claimed. By an amendment

 1st defendant shifted his claim to 2,616 acres and this size of the land claimed was further reduced to 2,434 acres. Quite clearly, 1st defendant exhibited uncertainty as to the size of the land he is claiming. As the hearing of the case proceeded, the 1st defendant could not stand the gaze of the incredulity of his counterclaim and so he kept on shifting the goal post to avoid failure.

            I cannot agree more with learned lawyer for 3rd defendant when he said “1st defendant has been going forum shopping for land. The moment he sees any vacant land with no activity thereon, he would do all to grab it”.

           

It is no wonder therefore to hear 3rd defendant’s witness Nene Atsure Benta saying; “the claim of the 1st defendant i.e. counterclaim relief I does not make sense because he himself agreed that part of the land given to the Central University College belonged to the Awuley Kwao family

(3rd defendant) and now if he is claiming such a total area then he is saying that the entire land on which the University College is situate belongs to him. 5,565 feet can approximately be over one mile. This is why I am saying that it will encompass the whole of the Central University. From the point of Central University to mile 30 that stretch of land is owned by 3rd defendant”.

            I am not oblivious of the desperate corrective measures 1st defendant took in bringing to the fore an alleged mistake made by the surveyor. I am talking about Exhibit ‘8’ and ‘8A which sought to correct the fact that the land being claimed by 1st defendant protruded unto the Ningo land. I have agonized over this self–serving measure 1st defendant took and the conclusion I come to is that it is an afterthought that deserves no regard. Exhibit ‘1’ was produced by an order of the court whereby all parties participated. It was formally tendered into evidence and all parties had the opportunity of cross-examining the surveyor who produced that work.

            Therefore, when 1st defendant noticed the so-called mistake, what stopped him from applying for the cancellation of the whole composite plan for a new one to be made. Exhibits ‘8’ and ‘8A’ would thereby have featured in the new one. That is to say, looking at Exhibit ‘1’, the accredited composite plan made by the court’s expert, Exhibit ‘8A has no place in it and so accepting Exhibit ‘8A and giving it due weight will make nonsense the evidential significance of Exhibit ‘1’. 1st defendant chose to unilaterally do a plan purporting to correct a perceived mistake. Although the other parties surprisingly did not resist the move, I think that for evidential

 

 

purposes, what 1st defendant did was self-serving post facto rationalisation measure and it cannot attract any due consideration or regard by the court.

            This state of affair negatively impacts on the prospect of the counterclaim of 1st defendant succeeding. Accordingly the counterclaim of 1st defendant fails and same is dismissed.

In all the claims of 1st defendant, it was evident that they share common boundary with 3rd defendant. In my view, it was incumbent upon

1st defendant who counterclaimed to have described this boundary with all certainty. It appears to me that some work like what Jackson did is required to spell out the exact boundary between 1st defendant and 3rd defendant. In this suit, I do not think 1st defendant/counterclaimant succeeded in spelling out the distinct and exact limits and dimensions of the boundary between their land and 3rd defendant. Therefore their claim to the land cannot be favourably considered.

            There is yet one comment worthy of making regarding the boundary between 1st defendant and 3rd defendant. To do this, I crave indulgence to refer to the picture painted by 1st defendant’s second witness, Nene Tetteh Kojo III in his evidence in chief. He testified thus:-

“As far as I remember there was a time that there was a boundary dispute between people of Dawhenya and Meotwo and I was tasked with five others to demarcate their boundaries for them. This was about 2005. As far as I know there was a time the people of Meotwo (3rd defendant) gave a piece

of land to Central University college and the family of Arden and Darpoh (1st defendant) complained that part of the land fell into the land the people of Meotwo gave the University.

As a result there was a dispute before the Prampram traditional Council. It was in connection with this that I and five others

 

were delegated to demarcate the disputed boundary. The five others with whom I did the demarcation were Nene Atueri Benta III, Mankrado of  Prampram, Nene Tetteh Eyuni II, chief of Lable (Lower Prampram), Nene Martey Kpone gbabla I of Mateheko, Numo Lartey Eyum of Abekuma and Numo E. T. Kpadey of Yeodushie”

 The witness then went ahead to mention how the demarcation

was done and both 1st defendant and 3rd defendant agreed to the

demarcation done.

 In cross-examination however, the witness answered these

            questions  thus:-

“Q.       I am suggesting to you that out of the entirety of the

           land it was only14 acres which belonged to the Arden

           and Darpoh family which had overlapped unto the land

           granted to the Central University College by 3rd defendant.

A.        I can accept that with an explanation. When we got to the

     point of the demarcation we asked the surveyors the extent

     of the land being disputed and they said it was about 28.6

     acres and they agreed to divide it into two. So I cannot   

 challenge if only 14 acres of the Arden and Darpoh land

 overlapped.

                          Q.      I suggest to you that the Arden and Darpoh family has no

                               land beyond the boundary up to the Central University

                               College up to Mile 30.

A.      I cannot say anything about that. What you have suggested

   is correct”

Going by the foregoing, I think that 1st defendant is estopped from contending that it is entitled to more than the 14 acre land carved out from

 

the land granted to the Central University which land the Central University paid for.

It appears from the evidence as a whole and Exhibit ‘3D6’ in particular that 3rd defendant exercised overt ownership right over the land at Meotwo by making grants thereof to one Tony Alhassan Adams in particular. It is worthy of note that the grants made to the said Tony Alhassan Adams have the fiat of 1st defendant per Exhibit ‘3D6’.

In my view by Exhibit ‘3D6 1st defendant “no objection” position caused 3rd defendant to believe that they have the right as owners of the land to grant and having granted the land based on that belief, 1st defendant cannot now be heard to purport to detract from that stand. I am hereby echoing the equitable principle of estoppel by statement or conduct. This principle is codified in Section 26 of NRCD 323. See the case of MECHANICAL LLOYD ASSEMBLY PLANT LTD. VS. NARTEY (1984-86)

             1 GLR 412 CA.

In any event, does Exhibit ‘3D6’ not cast doubt on the claim of the

1st defendant? How can 1st defendant who claims to own the land voluntarily write Exhibit ‘3D6 giving his blessing to the grant of the land made in favour of Tony Alhassan Adams by 3rd defendant without so much as any consideration. At least we are not told whether any consideration passed as a reason for the issuing of Exhibit ‘3D6’ by 1st defendant.

            1st defendant attempted to do damage control regarding the harm Exhibit ‘3D6’ did to his case by Exhibit “1D11” also written by Nene Kwaku Darpoh dated 11th May 2006. The question to ask is if really the land belonged to Nene Kwaku Darpoh or his family, why has he sat down all these years without instituting an action to protest against the said grants of the land made in favour of Tony Alhassan Adams? Even in this case where a clear opportunity availed the 1st defendant he made no such case.

 

            In the end both plaintiff and 1st defendant’s cases fail and same are dismissed. Learned lawyer for 3rd defendant invited me to apply the case of HANNA ASSI VS. GIHOC REFRIGERATION AND HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES NO. 2 (2007-2008) SCGLR 16 and enter judgment for 3rd defendant. It seems to me that that case is distinguishable from the facts of this case. That case is not applicable to the peculiar facts of this case.

Having dismissed plaintiff’s case and 1st defendant’s counterclaim,

I will award 3rd defendant cost of GH¢10,000 against plaintiff and GH¢7,000 against 1st defendant. As between plaintiff and 1st defendant

I make no order as to costs. Each of them to bear his own costs.

 

 

                                                                             (SGD) ANTHONY OPPONG J.

                                                               JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

 

 

 

LAWYERS:

D. K. SOKPOR ESQ; FOR PLAINTIFF.

YAW ASARE DARKO FOR 1ST DEFENDANT.

GEORGE HEWARD MILLS FOR 3RD DEFENDANT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT

                    OF JUSTICE (LAND COURT DIVISION) HELD IN ACCRA ON

                             TUESDAY 7TH JUNE 2011. BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP

                                              JUSTICE ANTHONY OPPONG J.

                              ____________________________________________________

 

           SUIT NO. L 381/98

 

  HENRY ODARKOR TETTEH   (DECEASED            }                    PLAINTIFF

 (SUBSTITUTED BY HENRIETA ODARKOR TETTEH)

  ACTING FOR HERSELF AND OTHER BENEFICIARIES

 OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT ISAAC TETTEH (DECEASED)                                                 

                                  VS.

            NORA KOSHIE TETTEH                                          

(SUBSTITUTED BY EDITH NYLANDER

ADUM-YEBOAH                                                              }                  DEFENDANT

            ________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                        J   U   D   G   M   E   N   T

_____________________________________________________________
 
 

Legal Library Services        Copyright - 2003 All Rights Reserved.