FRANK HODEY & ORS VS REAM „4‟ PLANTICENTAL CONST. LTD. & ORS

Plaintiffs commenced the instant action by issuing a writ of summons and statement of claim against the defendants on 4th September, 2009. Pursuant to leave granted by this court, differently constituted, on 22nd November, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended writ of summons and statement of claim on 4th December, 2012, claiming as follows:

a. A declaration of title to all that piece and parcel of land described in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the amended statement of claim.

b. Recovery of possession.

c. Damages for trespass.

d. Perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants, their assigns, workmen, privies, and all those claiming through them from entering upon and dealing with the land in dispute.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE

e. The plaintiffs claim against the defendants jointly and severally for the recovery of the cost of the land as stated in paragraphs 9A and 9B of the amended statement of claim.

f. Interest on the sum of money stated in the said paragraphs 9A and 9B of the amended statement of claim at the prevailing bank rate from 1st December, 2008, till the date of final payment.

g. Recovery of the sum of GH₵28,090.00 being the cost of wall, survey works, and the caretaker’s fees.

h. Interest on the said sum of GH₵28,090.00 from the 1st of December, 2008, till the date of final payment.

i. Costs including solicitor’s fees.

The defendants entered conditional appearance on 30th September, 2009. They, however, filed a statement of defence and counterclaim on 29th March, 2010. All the defendants deny the plaintiffs’ claim, and the 4th defendant counterclaimed as follows:

a. An order/declaration that she has acquired good title to the land granted her by the 1st and 2nd defendants.

b. An order of perpetual injunction to restrain the plaintiffs, their agents, workmen, assigns, etc., from having anything whatsoever to do with the 4th defendant’s said land.

c. Any other reliefs that on the evidence the court may deem fit to grant the 4th defendant.

d. Costs.

Plaintiffs filed their reply to the statement of defence and defence to counterclaim on 18th May, 2010, and went on to file an application for directions on the same day, raising the following issues:

a. Whether or not the 1st and 2nd defendants obtained the order to re-enter the plaintiff’s land by fraud.

b. Whether or not the 4th defendant had notice and knowledge of the fraud.

c. Whether or not the 1st and 2nd defendants’ purported grant to the 4th defendant was done in clear contraven