ANDREW NII KOI DSANE & ORS v. BENJAMIN AMON DSANE & 3 ORS
November 15, 2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- SOWAH, J.A.
- GYAESAYOR, J.A.
- GAISIE, J.A.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
November 15, 2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The dispute concerns land at Wodormiabra near Oyibi tied to the plaintiffs’ ancestor, Nee Okan Tsru Dsane of Teshie. Plaintiffs sought to set aside a statutory declaration of ownership (Land Registry No. 423/1985), secure a declaration of title, damages, nullify alienations, and recover possession. After the 1st and 2nd defendants withdrew and others did not contest, the High Court entered judgment for plaintiffs on 12 June 2014. Plaintiffs then served occupiers including Valley View University and sought a writ of possession; on 9 February 2017 the High Court refused, allowing continued occupation pending a separate ownership suit. On appeal, Sowah JA underscored that appeals are purely statutory and subject to Rule 9 of C.I. 19, held the refusal was interlocutory, and, consistent with Bosompem v. Kwame Tetteh, noted no extension lies. Because the notice was filed over 70 days later, the Court of Appeal struck it out and dismissed the appeal.
JUDGMENT
SOWAH, J.A.:
Background facts
The plaintiffs/appellants issued a writ of summons against the defendants for the following:
1. An order setting aside the statutory declaration of ownership of land at Oyibi purportedly made by the defendants in respect of the plaintiffs’ ancestor Nee Okan Tsru Dsane of Teshie’s land at a place known and called Wodormiabra near Oyibi and registered as Land Registry No. 423/1985
2. Declaration of title
3. Damages for trespass
4. An order setting aside any alienation of the said land by defendants to any person or persons or group of persons or organizations.
5. Recovery of possession.
The 1st and 2nd defendants' threw in the towel and announced to the court that they no longer wished to defend the suit. The other defendants' do not appear to have participated in the trial which followed. The plaintiffs' went ahead to testify and based on the unchallenged evidence of the 1st plaintiff, the trial High Court entered judgment against the defendants on 12th June 2014 on all the reliefs claimed.
The plaintiffs served the occupiers of the land including Valley View University, the Interested Party/Respondent herein with an Entry of Judgment and applied for a Writ of Possession to issue. The Interested Party/Respondent [hereafter called the respondent] opposed the application and applied for Relief.
In a Ruling dated 9th February 2017, [at page 178-179 of the Record of Appeal] the court refused the appellants' application for writ of possession to issue to enable them to go into execution against Valley View. The trial judge was of the view that the respondent was entitled to remain in occupation pending determination of a suit over ownership of the same land which the respondent was defending against different claimants to the knowledge of the appellants'. That Ruling is the subject of this appeal.
The appellants' Notice of Appeal which was filed on 4th May 2017 [see pages 180-181 of the Record] has the following grounds:
i. The learned trial Judge erred by failing to allow the plaintiffs/appellants to levy execution against the interested Party/Respondent
ii. The ruling is against the weight of the evidence
The appellants' are praying this court for the following reliefs:
i. An order setting aside the ruling of the High Court.
ii. An order granting the Plaintiffs/Appellants a writ of possession against the Interested Party/Respondent in respect of the land in dispute.
It is trite learning that a