JOSEPH JOHN RADDY & ORS VS NANA TUTU AMPEM II

ADJEI-FRIMPONG JSC:

My Lords, the events surrounding the subject matter of this appeal, which is Plot No. 106 Old Town Section B, Adum Kumasi, date back to 1927. It all started when on October 19 of that year, the then Government of Ashanti acting through the Chief Commissioner of Ashanti granted a 50-year lease of the Plot to one Nana Kwaku Nsebetuo, the chief of Akyiawkrom (confused with Akyinakrom, Akyaakrom).

Sequel to the grant, Nana Nsebetuo went into some agreement with a certain Naja David and the 1st Defendant herein to develop the plot. As part of the material terms of the agreement, the developers would construct on the same plot, four storerooms which they would occupy as tenants, and four dwelling rooms with one kitchen and toilet to be occupied by Nana Nsebetuo. The cost of the construction together with a loan facility of 300 pounds which they advanced to Nana Nsebetuo was to be amortized through the monthly rent of 14 pounds or 168 pounds yearly, payable by them for occupying the four storerooms. The tenancy was said to be renewable. However, by 20th July 1955, the aggregate cost of the construction and the liability on the loan had been amortized to end that phase of the transaction. Also, by that date, Nana Nsebetuo had been destooled as chief of Akyawkrom. By and large, all these facts were free from any dispute by the close of trial.

Another fact also turned irrefutable. The lease of 1927 (henceforth called the headlease) had been granted in the personal name of Nana Nsebetuo. Following his destoolment however, one Kwaku Mensah and some elders of Akyiawkrom instituted an action in the Circuit Court against him. Essentially, they claimed, that even though the headlease was granted in his personal name, it was actually made for the benefit of the Akyiawkrom stool. In a judgment dated 4th October 1930 in favour of Kwaku Mensah and the elders, title in the plot was decreed for the Akyiawkrom stool.

What then prompted the instant action?

The pleading of the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent (hereinafter called “the Respondent”) indicates that after the initial agreement with Naja David and the 1st Defendant had ended, it fell on Nana Owusu Akyiaw II (the original Plaintiff) who had then become the chief of Akyiawkrom to renew the agreement with the 1st Defendant and Naja David. Naja David had however left the scene and so Nana Owusu Akyiaw II, together with one Boakye Agyemang, a linguist, entered into the agreement with the 1st and 2nd D