Gladys Anane Addo & 9 others v. Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly & Kejetia Traders Association

Reasons for Judgment

Sophia A. B. Akuffo

On October 31st 2007 this Court delivered its judgment in this matter, dismissing the appeal herein as being without any merit and reserved reasons for the judgment to the date hereof. Following therefore are the reasons for our judgment:-

By a Writ of Summons issued on March 09, 2001, Madam Gladys Anane Addo and 9 other persons (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Plaintiffs’), all claiming to be members of the Kejetia Traders Association, sued the Kumasi Metropolitan Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1st Defendant’ or ‘KMA’) and the said Association through its Chairman (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘Association’ or ‘the Appellant’) claiming the following reliefs:-

1. A declaration that KMA (1st Defendant in the action) is the sole body with the legal authority to allocate shops and stalls owned by KMA at Kejetia, Kumasi.

A declaration that it is unlawful for the Association (2nd Defendant in the action) to allocate shops and stalls that have been constructed at Kejetia.

A declaration that the original licensees of shops and stalls at Kejetia (who included the Plaintiffs) were entitled to be given the first option, or priority, in the allocation of the new stores at Kejetia that had been pre-financed by them.

An order for accounts and

An order of perpetual injunction restraining KMA and the Association from allocating any shops or stall at Kejetia without giving first option to the Plaintiffs.

For the purposes of this appeal, the relevant background facts are that the Plaintiffs, together with some other persons were all licensees of KMA and previously occupied certain shops and stalls at Kejetia, Kumasi. As part of a beautification programme, the government of Ghana decided to demolish and rebuild all shops and stalls at Kejetia. The newly built shops and stalls were to be occupied by the original occupants of the demolished structures. Consequently, the Plaintiffs, who are members of the Association, together with other members, were called upon to, and did make, contributions to pre-finance the reconstruction of the shops and stalls. Each person paid her contribution of, at least, ¢8,250,000.00 (now GH¢ 825.00) to the Association. It also appears that those who delayed in making their payments had to pay penalties of various amounts. Upon the completion of the new shops and stalls, the same were distributed by the Association (rather than KMA, which by law is the duly authorised body to own an