January 21, 2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
At the High Court in Accra, descendants of Sarah Addo sought declaratory and possessory relief, damages for trespass, and interim restraint over land on Bannerman Road, James Town, Accra, after the Defendant deposited building materials signaling development. The Defendant claimed leasehold rights under a lease dated 20 June 2000 executed by Rosemond Mark‑Hansen, described as head of the Sarah Addo family, backed by Land Certificate No. GA.18620 for parcel No. 102, Block 6, Section 031, and counterclaimed relying on Section 43(1) of the Land Title Registration Act and pleaded limitation under Section 10 of NRCD 54. The High Court granted an interlocutory injunction to maintain the status quo. On appeal, the Court of Appeal, per Tanko Amadu J.A., held that appellate interference with discretionary interlocutory orders is limited, that conflicts in affidavit evidence are not to be resolved at the interlocutory stage, and that the trial judge properly exercised discretion. The court dismissed the appeal but required an undertaking in damages.
JUDGEMENT
Tanko Amadu J.A
In the High Court Accra, the Plaintiffs/Respondents (hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondents’) took out a writ of summons against the Defendant/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellant’) for the following reliefs:-
(a) “Declaration of Title to the Land situate and lying at Bannerman Road, Accra bounded on the North-West by the Korleyna Road measuring 72 feet on the South-East, by the property of Laingoye Lartey measuring 50 feet, on one side and 25 ft on the other side, on the North- East by Bannerman Road measuring 72 ft, on the South-West by the property of Laingoye Lartey measuring 52 ft on one side and 22 ft 5 “ on the other side”.
(b) Recovery of possession
(c) Interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant, their servants, agents workmen and assigns from dealing with the land.
(d) Damages for trespass
(e) Costs”.
In their accompanying statement of claim, the Respondents traced the history of their interest in the land which as alleged the Appellants claim to have acquired through one Rosemond Mark-Hansen a niece of the Respondents albeit without the requisite authority. According to the Respondents following attempts towards an amicable settlement which failed, the Appellant evinced an intention to develop the land in dispute by depositing building materials on same. Hence the Respondents’ action.
The Appellant filed a defence to the Respondents’ action and has set up a counterclaim. In defence, the Appellant not only challenged the capacity in which the Respondents brought their action but averred that the said Rosemond Mark Hansen from whom they acquired their interest executed their lease in her capacity as Head of Sarah Addo family to which the land in dispute evolved. The Appellant further contend as alleged by the Respondents that, they are beneficiaries of a lease dated 20th June 2000, between them and the said Rosemond Mark Hansen as Head of the Sarah Addo family which lease is duly certified under Land Certificate No.GA.18620.
In the counterclaim, the Appellant contends that having lawfully acquired the subject matter it will rely and claim benefit under to the provisions of Section 43(1) of the Land Title Registration Act 1986 (PNDCL 152).
On the strength of this defence, the Appellant counterclaims against the Respondents as follows:-
“(a) Declaration of leasehold title to all that parcel of land comprising an approximate area of 0.09 of an acre being parcel No.102 Block 6 Section 031 a