CECIL RAWLINGS VS LAURENDA OWUSU & ORS
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP, JUSTICE GIFTY AGYEI ADDO
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Plaintiff Cecil Rawlings sued Defendant Laurenda Owusu over a land dispute, seeking various legal remedies. During proceedings, several defendants were added. The Defendant moved to dismiss the case, questioning the Plaintiff's existence. The Court required identity proof from Plaintiff, who failed to provide consistent identity documents, leading to the suit's dismissal. The Court ruled that without properly establishing identity, no capacity to sue exists, invoking civil jurisdiction principles.
On 22nd February, 2018, one Cecil Rawlings as Plaintiff instituted the instant suit against one Laurenda Owusu as Defendant in respect of a land dispute.
The Defendant entered appearance on 2nd March, 2018 and filed her defence to the suit on 9th March, 2018. In the course of proceedings, both parties, on application, had the following persons joined to the suit; East Dadekotopon Development Trust, Nii Kwade Okropong I, Lawrence Kanyi and Laud Samuel Nsiah Akuetteh as 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants respectively.
Subsequently on 26th July, 2018, the Plaintiff amended his writ of summons and statement of claim to indicate the new parties as joined and also to pray for the following reliefs: 1. A declaration of title to the land in dispute, which is Plot No. 3, 1st Peach Avenue, Burma Hills, East La Dadekotopon, in the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana.
2. A declaration that pursuant to Section 43 (1) of the Land Title Registration Act, 1986 (PNDCL 152), the Plaintiff as the registered certificate owner of the land in dispute has the indefeasible title.
3. A declaration that the construction of the plot in dispute by the 1st Defendant, without a registered interest and also for not obtaining a building permit from the La Dadekotopon Municipal Assembly was illegal.
4. Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants and all persons deriving authority from the Defendants from having any dealings with the land in dispute.
5. An order for the demolition of any structures unlawfully put on the land by the 1st Defendant.
6. General and special damages.
7. Attorney or legal fees.
8. Costs.
9. Any other reliefs the Court may deem fit.
Before the substantive matter could be determined by way of a trial, the instant suit has been attended with many interlocutory applications, such as an application for an Order of injunction, an application to strike out the counterclaim by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants and an application to set aside the entry of appearance and defence filed on behalf of the 2nd Defendant.
On 25th April, 2019, the 1st Defendant, during the pendency of the applications above mentioned, filed a motion to stay or dismiss the action.
By reason of the fact that the latter application sought to attack the very foundation of the suit, it became necessary that same is first heard before proceeding to hear the other applications.
The Plaintiff as Respondent filed an opposition to the application on 3rd May, 2019. The crux o