CLETUS BABRON KUFIA & ANOR v. MR. AIKINS & 2ORs

1.0 General Overview

This appeal which arises from the decision of the High Court dated 20/02/2023 beckons this Court to make a determination between pure legal rights as against equitable proprietary rights. Lord Camden stated in Smith vs. Clay (1767) Amb 645 in reference to the court of equity that:

Nothing can call forth this court into activity but conscience, good faith and reasonable diligence ...

2.0 Facts:

2.1 The Plaintiffs/Appellants’ (“Appellants”) Case

The Appellants instituted an action against the Respondents in the Land Division of the High Court sometime in 2011. In their Amended Statement of Claim after they had commenced their evidence in chief pursuant to leave granted by the court on 17/02/2021, the Appellants described themselves as owners of the premises situate on Plot No 1A, Klana Avenue, Adenta, being No 4, Block 12. By a lease dated 9/07/2007 and executed between them and the State Housing Company (SHC), a parcel of land situate on Plot No. 1A, Klana Avenue, Adenta – Accra was conveyed to them absolutely. They asserted that they obtained a valid land certificate in respect of the conveyance. The Appellants averred that after the grant of the parcel of land to them, they immediately took possession of same and exercised acts of ownership over the land. According to them, the Respondents had recently trespassed on a portion of their property and were laying adverse claim to the property by erecting structures on the land, without authority and with no title in the disputed property. The Appellants pleaded that in 2010 (sic), the Respondents vendor and two others claiming to be directors sued the Appellants, SHC and other persons in the High Court claiming among others that the housing units comprising Aprotech Housing Estate which includes the property in dispute belongs to them but the suit was dismissed. That sometime in 1996, the Ministry of Works and Housing disassociated itself from any sale of the said housing units by one Dr. Kofi Sam. They further asserted that despite several warnings to stop the trespassers and their developments on the land, the Respondents have refused/failed to abide by the warnings but have persisted in their acts of wanton trespass.

They therefore claimed as follows:

a. Declaration of title to all that piece of land referred to and specially described in paragraphs 3 and 5.

b. Immediate recovery of possession of the said land.

*c. injunction restrainin