DWOMOH v. OBUASI URBAN COUNCIL

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