ABUBAKARI SULEMAN KAYALI & ANOTHER v. KARIMU ALHASSAN
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OFOE, J.A
- BARTELS-KODWO,J.A
- BERNASKO ESSAH,J.A
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this Ghana Court of Appeal decision authored by Victor Ofoe, J.A., the court addressed a land title dispute over Plot No. 33, Ward C Zongo in Damongo. It was uncontested that Sgt Gariba Zabrama originally owned the property. The 2nd plaintiff/appellant, his son, claimed inheritance, said he permitted the defendant’s father to use the premises, and later sold the property to the 1st plaintiff/appellant. The defendant/respondent countered that his father, Alhassan Haruna, had purchased the plot about 35 years earlier, possessed and operated businesses there, and that he continued in occupation after 2005. The High Court had ruled for the defendant on his counterclaim in March 2019. On appeal, applying the weight-of-evidence review and Evidence Act presumptions of ownership based on long possession, as well as credibility assessments under section 80, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court and dismissed the appeal, finding no proof of permission and that fraud allegations about an allocation letter were immaterial.
OFOE, J.A:
It is not in dispute that the property in dispute, property No 33 Ward C Zongo, was originally owned by Gariba Amadu alias Sgt Gariba Zabrama (deceased). The main issue for determination by the trial High Court was who currently owns this property? Is it property that the 2nd plaintiff/appellant, who is the son of Sgt Gariba, inherited from his father or it is property that Sgt Gariba before his death sold to Alhassan Haruna whose son is the defendant/respondent now also claiming the property is his by inheritance? Meanwhile the 2nd plaintiff/appellant believing the property is his by inheritance has sold it to the 1st plaintiff/appellant.
The trial judge concluded in his 19th March 2019 judgment in favour of the defendant/respondent that, the property was sold by Sgt. Gariba to Alhassan Haruna and is therefore that of the defendant/respondent. The plaintiff/appellants are dissatisfied with this decision and are therefore before us arguing that we set aside the judgment of the trial court and enter judgment in their favour.
For a clearer appreciation of the judgment of the trial court and also our opinion in this delivery we provide a little more details of the case from their pleadings. We maintain the description of the parties as they were at the trial court: the plaintiff/appellants as the plaintiffs and the defendant/respondent as the defendant. We begin with the plaintiffs
The 2nd plaintiff claims to have inherited the property from the father. On the demise of his father he took full control of this property but had to leave to Accra to work for the company Taysec Construction Company. He therefore left the property in the care of his step father Baba Alhassan. It was this step father who informed him in Accra that the defendant’s father was seeking permission to occupy and use the premises, Plot No 33, for his business. He agreed and the defendant’s father fixed his grinding mill on the plot and started using some of the stores on the premises for keeping his equipment. In 2006 he sought to rent out the property to the defendant but the defendant pleaded he was not in the position to pay rent yet because he was in debt arising out of the burial expenses of the father. In 2015 he sold the property to the 1st plaintiff and duly notified the defendant about the sale. Even though the defendant promised to yield possession he has not and rather has proceeded to demolish some of the shops on the land intending a new development. Further pl