2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal (per A. B. Poku‑Acheampong, J.A., with Domakyaareh, J.A., and Asiedu, J.A., concurring) dismissed an appeal by the administrators of Aisha Nana’s estate concerning Plot No. OTB 106, Adum, Kumasi. The Akyiawkrom Stool, which had been judicially recognized since 1930 as owner of the property, had in 1955 executed Exhibit A with John Raddy and John Bitar over four storerooms. The court held Exhibit A to be a tenancy/sub‑lease, not an assignment, applying P.Y. Atta v. Kingsman and Street v. Mountford, pointing to rent, consent requirements, exclusive possession and a fixed term of 12 years and 30 days. It affirmed the High Court’s orders cancelling a lease granted to Aisha Nana and directing a fresh lease to the stool, finding the Lands Commission’s contrary grant arbitrary under Article 296 due to misdescription without hearing the stool. Raddy and Bitar could not assign title they did not have (nemo dat), conveyances pendente lite are suspect, and purchasers must exercise diligence. The appeal failed on all grounds; the High Court’s judgment was affirmed.
POKU-ACHEAMPONG, J.A.:
This is an appeal against `a judgment of the Kumasi High Court dated 26th July 2006 by the 3rd and 4th Defendants/Appellants.
For the purposes of this judgment and for reasons of convenience the Plaintiff/Respondent shall be referred to as “the Respondent” and the Defendants/Appellants as “the Appellants”.
The Respondent per a writ of summons filed on 11th May 1988 on his own behalf and on behalf of the Akyinakrom Stool claimed against the Appellants jointly and severally the following reliefs:
a. A declaration that the instrument executed between the Plaintiff and the 1st and 2nd Defendants and dated 8/7/55 with 1-9-1965 as the commencement date is a Tenancy Agreement for four stores built on plot Number OTB 106, Kumasi and not a devise (sic) assigning 12 years and 30 days being the residue of the term of 50 years granted to Plaintiff by a head lease to the 1st and 2nd Defendants.
b. A declaration that as between the Plaintiff’s stool and the Defendants, Plaintiff is better entitled to the renewal of the Head-lease referred to supra.
The 3rd and 4th Appellants entered appearance on 12th May 1988 and filed their defence on 14th June 1988 which was amended on 15th December 1988.
The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Appellants also entered appearance on 18th May 1988 and filed their defence on 22nd June 1988.
Issues
The parties put forward the following issues for determination.
1. Whether the document attached to the writ of summons is a tenancy agreement for 4 stores only in H/No. OTB 106 Adum, Kumasi or not.
2. Whether the Plaintiff’s action is vexatious or not.
3. Whether or not there was any residue unexpired of the term of 50 years granted in the Head-lease of plot H/No: OTB 106 under the agreement.
4. Whether or not the action is statute-barred.
5. Any other issues raised by the pleadings.
The Trial Judge in his judgment set down the following issues as relevant for determination of the matter:
(a) Whether or not Joseph John Raddy and John Bitar entered into a tenancy agreement with Akyinakrom Stool.
(b) Whether the document attached to the writ of summons is a tenancy agreement for 4 stores only in H/No.: OTB 106 Kumasi or not.
(c) Whether or not there was any residue unexpired of the term of 50 years granted in the Head lease of Plot No H/No. OTB 106 under the agreement.
Plaintiffs Case:
The Plaintiff averred that the Lands Commission in its capacity as the Trustee for the Golden Stool of Ashanti granted a Leas