GTI PROPERTIES LTD VS ADOLF ADARKWAH

I. PLAINTIFF’S CASE 1. The Plaintiff instituted the instant action by a Writ and Statement of Claim filed on 16th July 2019. It is the case of the Plaintiff as stated in paragraphs 4 and 5 of its Statement of Claim that sometime in the year 2016, it acquired the unexpired interest of Antartic Contract Works Ltd. in a parcel of land, measuring 0. 53 acres and situate at Ashalley Botwe in Accra.

The parcel of land is hereafter referred to as the “subject land/property”. 2. The Plaintiff added in paragraph 6 of its Statement of Claim that after acquisition it went into possession of the subject land and enjoyed peaceful possession until sometime in December 2016 when its attention was drawn to the attachment of buildings on the subject land in execution of a purported judgment obtained by a company known as Admix Company Limited against a company known as RLG Communications Ltd. 3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that although it had acquired the subject land and was in possession of same, its attention was not drawn to the suit instituted by Admix Company Limited against RLG Communications Ltd and this was an “apparent illegality”. 4. It is the further case of the Plaintiff as stated in paragraph 13 of the Statement of Claim that the Judgment Debtor, RLG Communications Ltd, had no lawful interest in the subject land.

5. Thirdly, it is the case of the Plaintiff that when it came to its attention that Judgment had been obtained Admix Company Limited in respect of the subject land, it immediately filed a Notice of Claim to challenge the apparent illegality and purported unlawful attachment of the buildings on the subject land, however it was not served with any processes pursuant to the Notice of Claim it filed and Interpleader proceedings were conducted and determined without its notice and for that matter without being offered an opportunity to be heard.

6. The Plaintiff stated that it came to its attention that the Defendant herein had acquired the subject property at a purported auction when the Defendant applied for possession of the subject property and forcible entry.

7. The Plaintiff added that in the face of the Notice of Claim that it had filed, the purported auction by which the Defendant claims to have acquired the subject land was apparently orchestrated to dispose of his property, the subject land.

8. It is the case of the Plaintiff that all attempts to prevent the Defendant from unlawfully taking possession of the subject property has pr