DR. EMMANUEL HARRYN TAWIAH v. KWAME APPIAH KUBI & 5 ORS

TORKORNOO (MRS), J.A.

The Plaintiff/Appellant contends in his amended Statement of Claim that ‘sometime between 1994’, he negotiated with and purchased two plots of land from one F.D Nsiah Asare (FD), now deceased, when the latter was living in Cote D’Ivoire.

In his evidence in chief found on page 23 of the Record of Appeal (ROA), Appellant put the date of the transaction in ‘the early nineties’. On page 53 of the ROA, he changed his averment about 1994 and testified that the transaction was ‘…in the early part of 1992 and during the pulmugation (sic) of the 1992 constitution’. According to the Appellant, he attended Mfantsipim School with his lawyer friend K A Nsiah Asare (PW1) who is the son of the said late FD.

It is PW1 who told him about the availability of the land for purchase and who took him to his father in Cote D’Ivoire.

Appellant alleges in his pleadings that he agreed to buy the two plots of ‘industrial’ but ‘waterlogged’ land for 20 million cedis (now 2000 Ghana Cedis) a plot and paid 40 million cedis (4,000 Ghana Cedis) for the two plots.

He paid20 million cedis upfront.

Thereafter, he returned to Ghana and paid the remaining 20 million cedis in some 6 instalments.

According to the Appellant and PW1, FD issued a number of receipts for the moneys paid by the Appellant.

They testified that all these receipts remained in the custody of PW1.

It is noteworthy that according toPW1, the receipts for the 20 million cedis paid in instalments were written in the name of PW1 and not the Appellant who paid for the land.

Appellant also said that he took possession of the said land by making the caretaker on the land farm it and give him the benefit of the farm produce.

Appellant’s case is that FD returned to Ghana in 1995, became ill and died in 1999.

He gave the Appellant no Site Plan nor title documentation on the Landover the entire period commencing 1992 to 1999 when he died.

After FD’s death in 1999, Appellant averred in his Statement of Claim that PW1 informed the 1st Respondent who was the customary successor of FD and co- administrator of his estate, to give the Appellant title to the land.

The 1st Respondent gave excuses for not preparing the title documents which excuses included lack of finances and the non-application of letters of administration.

Eventually when the 1st and 3rd to 5th Respondents took the letters of administration, they refused to transfer title in the claimed property to Appellant.

This is what sparked this