BRAINSFIELD LIMITED VS ACCRA METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP, GIFTY AGYEI ADDO, J.,
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Administrative Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a dispute between an Applicant and the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (Respondent) over the demolition of the Applicant's fence wall. The Applicant had applied for a Building Permit but did not receive formal notification of approval or rejection. After waiting for over 1.5 years, the Applicant constructed the fence wall, which was later demolished by the Respondent. The court found that the Respondent failed to follow proper legal procedures for notification and demolition as required by the Local Government Act 1993 (Act 462) and the National Building Regulations 1996 (L.I. 1630). The court ruled that the demolition violated the Applicant's constitutional rights under Articles 18 and 23 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. As a result, the court ordered the Respondent to pay compensation for the cost of the demolished wall, interest, and general damages. The case establishes important principles regarding property rights, the obligations of local authorities in demolition procedures, and the consequences of failing to follow proper legal processes in such actions.
The undisputed fact which has provoked the instant suit is that the Applicant’s fence wall was demolished by the Respondent acting per its Chief Executive Officer.
As a result of the demolition of the fence wall, the Applicant is seeking per the reliefs endorsed on the motion on notice for the enforcement of fundamental Human Rights filed on 28th May, 2014, the following: i. A declaration that the demolition by the 1st Respondent’s Chief Executive Officer of the fence wall constructed by the applicant on applicant’s parcel of land located at Airport West Residential Accra, described as Parcel No. 27, Block 1 Section 003/003/1988, is in violation of article 23 of the Constitution, 1992 as well as the applicant’s property rights guaranteed by article 18 of the Constitution and therefore, manifestly unlawful; ii.
An order compelling payment by the 1st Respondent of the sum of Three Hundred and One Thousand, Four Hundred and Four Ghana Cedis, Sixty-Five Pesewas (GH₵301, 304. 65) being the cost incurred by applicant in the erection of the fence wall in question; iii.
Interest at the prevailing bank rate on the sum of GH₵301, 304. 65 since May, 2014; iv.
General Damages; v. An order of mandamus compelling the 1st respondent to grant to the applicant a Building Permit in accordance with Regulation 7 and 8 of the National Building Regulations, 1996 (L. I. 1630) pursuant to the development applicant made by applicant on 30th May, 2012 evidence by Applicant No. AYA/SEC4/AWRA/2012/5; vi.
Any order(s) as to this Honourable Court may seem.
The Application, not surprisingly, was opposed by the Respondent.
It is important to mention that the original Respondents included the Attorney General.
However, pursuant to its Application filed on 16th June, 2014, this Court differently constituted, on 10th July, 2014, ordered that the name of the second Respondent, the Attorney-General, be struck out as it was not a necessary party to the suit.
By the Declaratory reliefs sought by the Applicant, the Applicant is stating simply that the demolition of its fence wall was in violation of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992 as well as the Applicant’s property rights under Article 18 of the Constitution.
The Applicant also prays for a declaration that the said demolition is manifestly unlawful.
It is the veracity of the said claims that this Court seeks to determine.
Article 18 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992 states: Every pe