DUMEGAH AHADJI DODO & ORS v. BRITISH TOBACCO CO. LTD & ANOR

RULING

BENIN JSC:

This is an application by the plaintiffs/defendants for a stay of execution of the judgment or decision of the Court of Appeal dated 23rd January, 2014 pending appeal to this court against the said decision. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by the defendants/respondents herein and entered judgment in their favour on their counterclaim.

The subject-matter of the dispute is a piece and parcel of land situate at Sogakope. Issues of title and recovery of possession, inter alia, were raised. Following the Court of Appeal’s decision the plaintiffs/applicants herein appealed to this Court, which is not yet seised with the appeal. So under the rules of Court, C. I. 16, the plaintiffs/applicants first made an application to the Court of Appeal to stay execution of the judgment, but the Court of Appeal dismissed it on 14th April, 2014. Thus this is a repeat application to this Court under C. I. 16.

The facts culminating in this application may be stated briefly as follows. In or around 1958 the plaintiffs granted a fifty year lease of the land in dispute to the British Tobacco Co. (1st defendant). The plaintiffs acted in their capacity as the representatives of the Fieve State, owners of the land. According to the plaintiffs they did not intend to renew the lease since they had decided to use the land for other purposes to serve the community interest. However, to cut a long story short, upon the expiry of the lease, the lessees did not restore the land to the plaintiffs. Apparently the 1st defendant had re-negotiated a fresh lease with persons who had not been authorised by the land owners. It turned up that prior to the 1958 lease agreement between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant, the Government of the then Gold Coast had compulsorily acquired the land in dispute. So in February 2008, the Government of Ghana granted a fresh fifty year lease to the 1st defendant who in turn sub leased the unexpired term to the 2nd defendant. As a result the defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs to the land. For the purposes of this decision the brief facts recounted herein will suffice.

The High Court gave judgment for the plaintiffs, but this judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeal which accepted the validity of the Government’s acquisition of the land that had effectively extinguished any other interests in the land, as held by the Court of Appeal.

Grounds for the application are set out in paragraph 14 through 17 of the affidavit i