2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this appeal, the children of the late C.C.K. Baah challenged a High Court ruling that summarily dismissed their suit and upheld the 1st defendants counterclaim concerning parcels at Awoshie known as Baah Yard. The plaintiffs sought declarations of title and estoppel, cancellation of land certificates, damages, and to set aside an April 8, 2009 terms of settlement under which the 1st defendant paid GH240,000 and the plaintiffs agreed to remove the Odorkor Tipper Truck Drivers and discontinue pending suits. They alleged shoddy preparation, inadequate consideration, undue influence, and unconscionability. The Court of Appeal, per Ayebi J.A., analyzed Order 11 rule 18 of C.I. 47 and inherent jurisdiction, emphasizing that summary dismissal is to be used sparingly and that undue influence claims require evidence at trial. Concluding the case raised triable issues and implicated third-party rights, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Courts ruling, struck out a duplicative notice of appeal, and ordered a full trial.
JUDGMENT
AYEBI J.A.
In this appeal the plaintiffs/appellants are praying this court to set aside the ruling of the High Court dated 10th March 2010 against them. In that ruling, the High Court upheld the 1st defendant/respondent’s application to dismiss the suit under Order 11 r.18 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
In the suit itself the appellants by way of summary, claim the following reliefs:
(a) A declaration of ownership or title to their father’s property situated at Awoshie popularly referred to as Baah Yard.
(b) A declaration that the 1st defendant is estopped from denying their title and rights to the said properties.
(c) An order setting aside the terms of settlement executed between 2nd plaintiff and 1st defendant on 8th April 2009 on the grounds of shoddy and incompetent preparation, inadequate consideration and undue influence and unconscionability.
(d) An order that the parties enter into a new settlement on terms different from the old one,
Or
(e) In the alternative, 1st defendant be ordered to pay compensation to the plaintiffs based on court ordered valuation report.
(f) An order directed at 2nd defendant to re-register the Awoshie lands (Baah Yard) in the name of the appellants who will convey same to the 1st defendant.
(g) An order directed at 1st defendant to pay arrears of rent to the plaintiffs, and
(h) General damages against the 1st defendant for the unlawful demolition of structures on plaintiffs’ land.
The above reliefs to me, is the gist of the plaintiffs claim against the defendants, particularly, the 1st defendant. But then these reliefs are couched in long winding sentences to the point that they have become almost incomprehensible and contradictory. I reluctantly recap them as appeared in the amended writ of summons filed on 20th May 2009:
(a) An order (against 1st defendant only) that by virtue of the 1st defendant initiating, executing and subjecting itself to the terms of settle dated the 8th April 2009 between 1st defendant and 2nd plaintiff regarding parcels 124 and 126 at Awoshie, Accra, the subject matter of High Court suit Nos. E533/98 and L511/02, the 1st defendant has, notwithstanding the conveyance made by Mrs. Cecilia Morkor Baah (2nd deceased) on the said lands to it, admitted and acknowledged that plaintiffs are, nonetheless the rightful owners of those parcels of land by virtue of sections 16 and 20 of plaintiff’s late fathe