EMMANUEL O. K. MARTINS & ANOR VS KING GEORGE ENTERPRISE LTD.

Title to family property cannot be transferred by one family member without theconsent of the others, and any such transaction is voidable and it is no wonderthat the defendant herein has abandoned his case perhaps having realized that hedid not obtain his interest in the property in dispute from the rightful owners whoinstituted this action on 26/06/14 with the following reliefs;

1. Declaration that the purported lease or sale of plaintiff’s family property described as house no D891/3 derby Avenue, Accra is null and void.

2. Recovery of the cost of rebuilding structures demolished by the defendant on the plaintiff’s land.

3. Damages in diem for trespass

4. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant his agents and assigns from however interfering with the plaintiff’s family’s quiet enjoyment.

The plaintiffs are joint heads of the Daniel Edward Martins family and sue onbehalf of the beneficiaries of late Daniel Edward Martin.

The plaintiffs have beenin quiet enjoyment of their property as surviving beneficiaries renting theirproperty out until 1st May 2014 or thereabout when they noticed demolishing oftheir property by the defendant an incorporated business entity.

Theinformation plaintiffs had was that the defendant, per a notice claimed theproperty had been leased to the company by late Dauda Daniel Martins and DinaAfi Martins children of the late Daniel Edward Martins.

The plaintiffs contendedthat the two children named do not own the property in dispute as sole owners, and therefore any such transaction is null and void because it was fraudulentlyacquired.

The plaintiffs particularized the fraud as follows; 1. The defendant knew or ought to have known that the property is an estate belonging to all beneficiaries of the late Daniel Edward Martins.

2. The defendants colluded with the said Duada and Dina Martins to secure a lease without the requisite consent of all the beneficiaries.

3. The defendant knew or ought to have known that Dauda and Dina were not the owners qua owners of the property.

4. The defendant prepared or caused to be prepared alleged leasehold to describe the said Dauda and Dina Martins as owners knowing they werenot.

The defendant filed a defence on the 22/07/14 and admitted that the propertywas leased to it by the administrators of the late Daniel Edward Martins for andon behalf of the family members.

The defendant attached a judgment from thecourt of appeal which it stated should be a res judicata to this su