AKOSUA KARLE OKOH VS TETTEH AYAA IDDRISU & ORS
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Tort Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Karle Okoh, a forensic auditor with KPMG, challenged the legality of a court‑ordered auction that purported to convey Plot B11, Sector A, Atomic Hills Estate at Ashongman to purchasers on September 9, 2014. She proved a chain of title through a 1995 sublease by Raabshold Company Limited (executed by Winfred Otuafro Aryeh and Tenmote Akakpo) to her father, George Victor Okoh, a registered 2012 deed of gift to herself, and a 2014 land title certificate and municipal building permit, coupled with acts of possession. The Court, after ensuring substituted service and proceeding in the Defendants’ absence, held the judgment debtors had no remaining interest in Plot B11 at the time of attachment and sale, rendering the auction void. It granted declaratory and injunctive relief, awarded GH¢10,000 in trespass damages, and GH¢20,000 costs, while emphasizing the court’s duty to set aside void acts and the weight of unchallenged evidence.
i. Introduction
[1] On the 11th day of December 2014 the Plaintiff caused the writ of summons accompanied by a statement of claim to issue against the Defendants for the following reliefs: a. A declaration that the attachment and subsequent sale of the Plaintiff’s land known as Plot number B11 within Sector A of the Atomic Hills Estate situate, lying and being at Ashongman in the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana bounded on the North by 1st Pine Close measuring 100 feet more or less, on the South by Plot No. B10 measuring 100 feet more or less, on the East by Pink Measuring 700 feet more or less, on the West by Plot No. B8 measuring 700 feet more or less and containing an approximate area of 0. 16 acre or 0. 06 hectare to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants on 9th September 2014 is illegal, null and void.
b. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their assigns, agents, servants and or workmen from dealing with the land in dispute or interfering with the Plaintiff’s interest in the land in dispute.
c. General Damages for trespass.
d. Costs including Solicitors fees. [2] From the record the 3rd Defendant was served with the writ of summons and the statement of claim on January 3, 2015. He was also served with the Motion for Interlocutory Injunction on January 13, 2015. Subsequently, by an Order of Substituted Service dated May 4, 2015 the 3rd Defendant was again served together with the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Defendants were served with the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim.
Further to the service and after the Defendants failed to enter appearance and to file a defence, the Plaintiff filed for default judgment in respects of reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons.
By an order of the Court dated 17th June 2016 the Motion for Judgment was also served on the Defendants by substituted service. [3] By an order dated November 2, 2017 the Court granted an Interlocutory Judgment in favour of the Plaintiff and thereafter, I ordered that the Plaintiff to file a witness statement(s) to prove the claim and serve same on the Defendants together with a Hearing Notice by substituted service.
The Plaintiff complied with the order and filed a witness statement with attached exhibits on November 16, 2017. The Plaintiff further complied with the order for service and there is an Affidavit of Posting on the docket that the Defendants were served with the witness statement and the hearing notice on November 17,