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
- Contract Law
- Property Law
- Land Law
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appeal challenges the High Court's decision that the plaintiffs lacked the capacity to sue and had no cause of action against the 1st and 2nd defendants. The trial court ruled that the plaintiffs' interests in the property expired with the lease. The appeal argues that the trial court erred in its conclusions regarding the plaintiffs' capacity and interest in the property.
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