DR. RAMATU AFIO PEREGRINO BRIMAH & ANOR vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MAWUMS CONSTRUCTION & ANOR

On the 28th day of October, 2022 the 1st Defendant/Applicant filed the instant Application praying the Court for an order dismissing the instant suit.

The nucleus of the Application according to Counsel for the 1st Defendant is that since the Plaintiffs admit the subject land was compulsorily acquired by the State, the Plaintiffs have no interest in the subject land for them to seek for reliefs in respect of same.

The Application was resisted by the Plaintiff/Respondent.

The question is, do the Plaintiffs have any cause of action against the Defendants.

A perusal of the Amended Writ of Summons and the attached Statement of Claim shows that the Plaintiffs admit the subject land forms part of a tract of land compulsorily acquired by an irrigation project.

This clearly forms the foundation of the instant Application.

Paragraphs 9-12 of the Amended Statement of Claim read:

“ ‘9’ The State in 1992 approached the 2nd Plaintiff’s family and compulsorily acquired the disputed land for the purpose of carrying out an irrigation system

‘10’ The 2nd Plaintiff states that it was not paid any compensation by the State following the compulsory acquisition in 1992 and to date has not received any compensation.

‘11’ The 2nd Plaintiff states that by the year 2015, which is 23 years after the compulsory acquisition, it became clear that the State was not using the land for the intended purpose but was rather granting portions to private individuals and corporate bodies.

‘12’ The family therefore wrote to the Greater Accra Regional Lands Commission to release its land to it”

If I may ask, has the Government abandoned its desire to use the subject land for the irrigation project.

If so, is the Government obliged to grant portions to third parties without giving the 2nd Defendant’s family the original owners of the land the first option.

Is the family entitled to compensation for the compulsory acquisition of same or recovery of possession because it was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired as claimed by the 2nd Plaintiff’s family.

It is my considered view that these are some of the issues this Court is obliged to resolve in this suit.

In the circumstance I shall refuse the Application since it will be unfair to do so at this stage.

EMMANUEL AMO YARTEY (J)