DWOMOH v. OBUASI URBAN COUNCIL
February 14, 1972
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
- AZU CRABBE J.S.C.
- LASSEY
- SOWAH JJ.A
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
February 14, 1972
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On appeal from the High Court, Kumasi, Opanin Kwasi Dwumo challenged the Obuasi Urban Council’s forfeiture of his re-allocation of two building plots, Kwabrafoso No. 9 and Tutuka No. 101, administered by the council for Ashanti Goldfields Corporation. The council’s scheme required development within twelve months; Dwumo paid ground rent and obtained building permits but the council posted re-entry notices in November 1956, later re-allocating the plots. In February 1959, the council’s treasurer accepted Dwumo’s advance rent through 1960. Dwumo argued this acceptance waived forfeiture. The appellate court, per Lassey J., with a detailed concurrence by Azu Crabbe J.S.C. and agreement by Sowah J.A., held there was no waiver absent council knowledge or authorization, and that re-entry was validly exercised. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court.
JUDGMENT OF LASSEY J.
This appeal was by the plaintiff, the appellant herein, against the decision of the High Court, Kumasi, which dismissed a claim for damages against the defendants, the respondents herein. The appellant was the lawful owner of a house on plot number 301 situate on Insuta Street, Obuasi, which he bought. By a scheme of development and layout by the respondent council, the appellant’s property became affected and, as a result, the respondents recovered possession of it. In replacement, the appellant was given a new lease of two plots known as No. 9 at Kwabrafoso and No. 101 at Tutuka, respectively. Both plots are within the Obuasi area under the administration of the respondent council which administered all the lands in Obuasi for and on behalf of the Ashanti Goldfields Corporation, the owners thereof.
The respective plots were re-allocated to the appellant in 1951, and he entered both and paid the annual rents regularly and these were received from the commencement of the lease in 1951 up to the period 1960 that is, one year in advance. The appellant said after that he applied for and obtained from the respondent council building permits Nos. 547 and 548 preparatory to engaging on building activities on the two plots. He said he had virtually completed the building on one of the plots which had reached roofing level when the respondent council in November 1956 gave notice of its intention to re-enter the plots on the ground of failure to build on time, and did enter. Thereupon the appellant sued the council to recover damages for unlawfully determining his occupation of the plots.
The ground given by the respondent council for its decision to re-enter the plots was that the appellant had failed to develop the two plots assigned to him by the council by not having buildings erected on them in compliance with the councils building regulations and also in breach of the condition which required him to build on the plots within twelve months of going into occupation.
[p.407]
It seems when the plots were being allocated to the appellant, no written lease or agreement embodying the vital condition to build within twelve months was produced and shown to him. The appellant said he was never told of this condition by the clerk of council at the time of the reallocation of the plots. This the clerk denied in his evidence, and said he communicated to the appellant verbally that occupation of the plots was subject to the fulfilment of the co