JAMES QUAO OFORI AND OTHERS v. F. F. NORTEY of Plot No. 9, Boundary Road, Sekondi

Judgment :

In this case, the plaintiffs ask for a declaration of title to the plot of land held on lease from the Gold Coast Government known as No. 9 Boundary Road, Sekondi, and an injunction restraining the defendant from disposing of any title to the land in question.

The facts of the case as revealed in evidence show that the plaintiffs and the defendant are at present residing in separate houses which they have erected on plot No. 9 at Boundary Road, Sekondi. The land on which the houses have been erected is Government land and is held on lease from the Government at the present time by the defendant, F. F. Nortey, in virtue of a lease granted to him on the 31st December, 1937, for a period of ten years from the 1st January, 1937, that is to say, that the present lease expires on the 31st December, 1946. The rent payable in respect of the whole plot is £419/- per annum, due by equal half yearly payments in advance. This lease replaces a previous lease granted by the Sekondi Town Council to the defendant on the 14th March, 1927, in respect to the same plot at a yearly rental of £7, payable half yearly and which is also expressed to be for a period of ten years, that is to say, from the 1st January, 1927 up to the 31st December, 1936. The plot is referred to in the lease of the 14th March as Plot No. 9. and as No. 3 in the deed of the 31st December, 1937.

It is therefore quite plain that according to these two leases, the defendant is the sole lessee and under the terms of the lease he cannot assign, underlet or part with the possession of the land or any part thereof without the prior consent in writing of the lessor, formerly the President of the Sekondi Town Council, and now the Government of the Gold Coast Colony.

It is contended for the plaintiffs, however, that these two leases do not reflect the true position of affairs as between the plaintiffs and the defendant. Their case is that some forty years ago their predecessors in title, and the predecessor in title of the defendant, were together in occupation of the plot of land in question as separate and independent tenants, but without any written lease being entered into between them and the Government; indeed, it is admitted by the defendant that there was no written lease prior to 1927 . The original tenants disposed of their interest in the lease to the present holders, and by agreement, or arrangements acquiesced in by them, the two deeds of lease were made out in the name of the present