ANTHONY MENSAH & ORS v. SAMUEL MANU ABEYIE & ORS
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- FRANCIS KORBIEH, J.A.
- IRENE DANQUAH, J.A
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Corporate Law
- Tort Law
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Mariama Owusu, J.A., presiding over a three-judge Court of Appeal panel (with Francis Korbieh, J.A., and Irene Danquah, J.A.), dismissed an appeal by traders occupying three store rooms in House No. OTB 128, Adum, Kumasi. The appellants—including Lims Limited, Madam Elizabeth Mensah, and Mr. and Mrs. Adu Boahene Owusu (Akosua Afrah)—claimed they had purchased the rooms from the 3rd respondent, Mrs. Alice Bedwei, and her late brother, Charles Abraham Haick, between 1993 and 1994, under agreements contemplating automatic renewal after any new head lease. The Government of Ghana later granted Mrs. Bedwei and her siblings a fresh 50‑year lease in September 2009, which was assigned to the 1st and 2nd respondents for redevelopment. Affirming the High Court’s preliminary determination under Order 33 of C.I. 47, the Court of Appeal held that the 1st and 3rd appellants lacked capacity (because Lims Limited, a separate legal person, contracted), and that any interests expired with the head lease; continued possession after expiry was trespassory. Any remedy of the 2nd appellant lay, if at all, in damages against the 3rd respondent. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court’s judgment affirmed.
Mariama Owusu, J.A:
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court, Kumasi dated 23-7-2010. In the said decision, the court held among other things that:
“It is evident that the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the 1st and 2nd defendants. The cause of action they may have against the 3rd defendant may relate to breach of agreement and not the type of reliefs sought in the instance action.
In view of the courts holdings, the trial of the other issues are completely unnecessary. The plaintiffs have no cause of action and therefore have no capacity to institute the present action. The court herby dismisses all the claims sought by the plaintiffs.
As assignees, the 1st and 2nd defendants have title to the disputed property and are entitled to recovery of possession. Since the plaintiffs are not in the premises under any grant, they are trespassers. And having denied the title of the 1st and 2nd defendants, the plaintiffs are liable to be ejected forthwith…”
Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the plaintiffs appealed to this court.
The Grounds of Appeal are:
a. The trial Judge erred when he ruled that the appellants have no capacity to institute the action.
b. The learned High Court Judge erred when he ruled that the appellants’ interest in the property came to an end when the lease of the property expired.
c. Additional Grounds of Appeal to be filed upon receipt of the record of proceedings.
The Relief sought from the court:
That the Ruling delivered by the High Court (Land Division) on 23-7-2010 be set aside and the case tried on its merits.
Before going into the merits or otherwise of this appeal, let me give a brief background of this case.
The plaintiffs/appellants issued a writ against the defendants jointly and severally for the following reliefs:
1. Declaration that they are the owners by purchase of the 3 store rooms in which they carry on their business in House No. OTB 128, Adum, Kumasi.
2. A declaration that as owners of the 3 store rooms, they have interest in the property known as House No. OTB 128 Adum, Kumasi
3. An Order of Perpetual Injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, servants and workmen from pulling down House No. OTB 128 Adum, Kumasi or dealing with the property in anyway which is adverse to the plaintiffs’ interest and occupation of the property, the subject matter in dispute.
In the Statement of Claim that accompanied the Writ of Summons, the plaintiffs aver that, they