EPHRAIM O. COMMODORE v. MRS. AGNES ABLA AKOTO & ANOR
February 27, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (LAND DIVISION)
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE EMMANUEL AMO YARTEY J.
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
February 27, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (LAND DIVISION)
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
The case of the Plaintiff as captured by his statement of claim is that he is a Ghanaian citizen resident in London, in the United Kingdom and sues through his lawful attorney, Kwaku Amankwatia of Accra. The 1st Defendant is a retired Public Servant and a grantor of the Plaintiff in respect of land described as Plot No. 4; Melon Close, Teshie Nungua Housing Estate, Accra.
1.1 The 2 nd defendant is a citizen of Ghana and claims ownership of the said property described as plot No. 4, Melon close, Teshie Nungua Housing Estate, Accra. The Plaintiff says that the 1st Defendant presented to him that she had acquired the said land in 1978 and which acquisition is evidenced by a conveyance. The Plaintiff says that in the year 1997, the 1st Defendant offered to dispose of her land described herein above to him for an equivalent of three Thousand and Six Hundred Pounds Sterling (£3,600) and which proposition was duly accepted by the Plaintiff.
1.2 The Plaintiff says that the 1st Defendant confided in him that he needed money urgently to solve some personal problems and that she needed to sell off the above described land to enable her raise the amount of money needed; and offered the land to the Plaintiff to buy. The Plaintiff says that the 1st Defendant sent copies of the documents covering the land to him by post and also deposited the original document with the Plaintiff’s wife.
1.3 The Plaintiff also says that the 1st Defendant wrote series of letters to him to convince him of the authenticity of her title to the land and her preference to transfer title to him. The Plaintiff further states that he transferred various sums of money to the 1st Defendant at various times in fulfilment of the consideration required for the transfer of title in the land to him.
1.4 The Plaintiff says that upon payment of substantial part of the consideration to the 1st Defendant, he requested for the transfer of the title in the land to him, wherefore, the 1st Defendant revealed to the Plaintiff that the land is part of a larger track of land vested in the State Housing Company of Ghana.
1.5 He went on to say that the 1st Defendant then requested of him to pay for an amount in demand by the State Housing Company as penalty for a claim of trespass by the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff says further that the 1st Defendant assured him that the State Housing Company would transfer the title in the land to her, the 1st Defendant who would onwardly transfer title
AI Generated Summary
Justice Emmanuel Amo Yartey J. of the Ghana High Court determined a land title dispute concerning Plot No. 4, Melon Close, Teshie-Nungua Estate. The Plaintiff, a Ghanaian resident in London acting through his attorney, agreed in 1997 to purchase the land from the 1st Defendant, remitted funds including penalties demanded by the State Housing Corporation, and built a house (19982001) under the 1st Defendants supervision. Years later, he discovered a purported 2001 assignment to the 2nd Defendant, Rose Aklerh Baako (represented by attorney Joseph Tawiah Sam), and that the property had been rented to the Centre for Popular Education and Human Rights, Ghana. The 2nd Defendant asserted consent from State Housing and status as an innocent purchaser; the 1st Defendant blamed a sale by the Plaintiffs wife. Applying settled principlesthat fraud vitiates all transactions, that allegations of fraud in civil cases must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and that a purchaser who pays and takes possession gains an equitable interest overriding later conveyances with noticethe court held that the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiffs wife lacked capacity or title to convey. The sale to the 2nd Defendant was void ab initio, all the Plaintiffs reliefs were granted, costs awarded, and the 2nd Defendants counterclaim dismissed.