Board of Trustees of the Nichiren Shoshu Sokagakkai of Ghana v Ghanatta

ADJABENG JA. On 14 October 1992, the plaintiffs-respondents herein took action against the 1st defendant-appellant herein and one other at the High Court, Accra. The plaintiffs-respondent by their writ of summons claimed the following reliefs:

“(1) A declaration of title to plots nos 86 and 87 Amissa Gon, Dansoman, Accra, together with all the buildings thereon and on which the Kaikan (centre for worship) of the plaintiff is situated.

(2). Recovery of possession of the disputed property.

(3) Recall and cancellation of any document affecting the land, prepared by the 2nd defendant purporting to vest the property in the 1st defendant or any other person or persons.

(4) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant in his agents, servants, workmen or assigns or any association or bodies formed by him from interfering in any way with the property in dispute.”

In a statement of claim subsequently filed by the plaintiffs they averred that the plaintiffs, a religious body, were originally established under the name Nichiren Shoshu of Ghana in 1968 as a branch of Soka Gakkai organisation in Ghana. This organisation was registered in 1975 under the Trustees Act 1962 (Act 106) and in 1977 acquired the property now in dispute for the purpose of building thereon their place of worship known as the “Kaikan”. The name of the organisation was in 1989 changed from Nichiren Shoshu of Ghana to Nichiren Shoshu Sokagakkai of Ghana and was re-registered as such under the Religious Bodies (Registration) Law 1989 (PNDCL 221). The plaintiffs averred that owing to some leadership changes which were made in April 1990, before the re-registration under PNDCL 221, a few members of the organisation, led by the 1st defendant-appellant herein, decided to disrupt the activities in the organisation; that even though the plaintiffs had requested the 2nd defendants, the original owners of the land, to prepare the documents on the land in the new name of the plaintiffs, they rather chose to do so in the old name of the organisation and released them to the 1st defendant-appellant and his break-away group. The plaintiffs therefore contended in paragraphs 27, 28 and 29 of their statement of claim as follows:

"27. The 1st defendant and his group are not yet registered and they do not constitute the old group to claim any title to the property.

28.The plaintiff will contend that the conduct of the 2nd