ALFRED LANGDON & ANOR VS KWAKU DUAH & ANOR

Plaintiff, Alfred Alorbu, in his capacity as the eldest son of John Yao Akplaga, hereafter referred to as the deceased, and on behalf of some of the beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate, filed a suit in the High Court against the 1st and 2nd defendants for the following reliefs:

a. A declaration that the purported sale of the property by the 2nd defendant to the 1st defendant is null and void since she had no authority to deal with the property and she is not the sole beneficiary of the property.

b. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant, her agents, or assigns from entering onto the said property.

c. Special damages against the 1st defendant for the destruction of the roof of their building.

d. General damages against the 1st defendant for loss of use and inconvenience.

Counsel for the plaintiff and Counsel for the 1st defendant filed addresses, the contents of which provided guidance for the court.

The property in dispute is House No. 26, Atracco Down, Madina, East Legon, also known as “Akplaga Villa.” Before his death on 1st April 1997, the deceased lived in this house with the 2nd defendant, who was his second wife, and his nine children, including the plaintiff.

After his death, the 2nd defendant sold the house to the 1st defendant without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff and his siblings.

The plaintiff’s case is that the house in dispute was the property of his deceased father and that the 2nd defendant did not have the authority to sell it to the 1st defendant in view of the fact that letters of administration had not yet been taken in respect of his deceased father’s estate.

The plaintiff further complained that the 1st defendant, with the aid of thugs, had destroyed the roof of the house in order to make it uninhabitable for the occupants.

This incident was reported to the police, who arrested and arraigned the 1st defendant before the circuit court.

In his statement of defence, the 1st defendant admitted that he purchased the house in dispute from the 2nd defendant.

He claimed that the 2nd defendant had a beneficial interest in the house in dispute, although she did not have any legal title to the land on which it had been built.

He further asserted that the allodial owners of the land in dispute had regularised the transaction between him and the 2nd defendant by transferring the land in dispute to him through a lease dated 31st October 2003.

He therefore counterclaimed for the following:

1. A d