ADU KOFI DJIN v. SEIDU MUSA BAAKO
November 15, 2006
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
- Atuguba, J.S.C.
- Mrs. Wood, J.S.C.
- Prof. Ocran, J.S.C.
- Ansah, J.S.C.
- Aninakwa, J.S.C
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Probate and Succession
November 15, 2006
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court case concerns competing claims to land in Accra between the administrator of Andrew Yao Kwasi Djin’s estate and the administrator of Mallam Musah Baako’s estate. The High Court decreed title in the Baako family but nonetheless granted the plaintiff reliefs by declaring the defendant’s counterclaim statute-barred under Section 10(6) of the Limitation Decree based on adverse possession. The Court of Appeal reversed. On further appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal properly reheard and evaluated the evidence; both parties had capacity as administrators under letters of administration; and the limitation period did not run against the defendant’s estate until letters of administration were granted in 1998 (consistent with Act 63 s104 and Prah v Ampah). The trial judge’s own finding that the Ablorh Mills grant to the plaintiff’s father was “null and void” meant no title passed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal’s decision affirmed.
Following two earlier judgments at the lower courts, the issues to be determined in this case have considerably narrowed down.
ANINAKWAH, J.S.C.:
The Defendant by his Statement of Defence denied the plaintiff's claim. He, too, pleaded in paragraphs 3 and 5 by which he set up strong Defence against the plaintiff's claim, and went on to claim by way of counterclaim thus:
(i) Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land situate lying and being at Sabon Zongo Accra- particularly (described) on the Counterclaim.
(ii) Perpetual Injunction against the plaintiff, his personal
representatives, assigns, agents, servants and workmen.
(iii) General Damages for trespass.
The plaintiff in his reply and defence to the counterclaim denied the defendant's counter claim and by way of defence raised the defences of Estoppel and the defence under the Statute of Limitations against the Defendant
.It is observed from the pleadings that both parties relied heavily on documentary evidence of Indentures and past judgments
Plaintiff pleaded in paragraphs l(a), 2, 3(a), 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of his Amended Statement of claim, indentures and judgments as bases of his claim to title to the land in dispute.
Declaration of title to all that piece of land at Laterbiokorshie Accra described on the indorsement to the Writ of Summons.
General Damages for trespass.
Special Damages for destruction of Wall around the said land.
Perpetual Injunction against, the defendant his agents, servants, workmen and assigns.
The main issue which the Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) considers as his core issue to be determined by this court is-whether the Counterclaim of the Defendant/Appellant/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) is statute barred.
On 5th February 1999, the plaintiff filed this action at the High Court Accra, claiming against the Defendant the following reliefs:
The trial court after a full trial and having carefully weighted all the evidence contained in the various exhibits tendered in the case before it, had no problem decreeing title in the defendant's family. In doing so, the trial judge held thus:
" This right of the Baako family as against the Ablorh Mills family over Sabon Zongo land dates back to 1909 when the said lands were granted to the Baako family as a settlement for the Hausa community, with the knowledge and consent of the Ablorh Mills family who are the grantors of Plaintiff's father. E