MAWUTOR KUDZORDZI & ORS v. JOSEPH YAO ZIWU & ORS

OWUSU (MS.) JSC:-

On 28th February, 2018, the Court of Appeal sitting at Ho, dismissed the appeal of the 1st Defendant/Appellant/Appellant and affirmed the Judgment of the trial High Court.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Defendant mounted the appeal before the Supreme Court on the following grounds:

a)That the Court of Appeal woefully failed to adequately consider the case of the 1st Defendant/Appellant /Appellant thereby occasioning substantial miscarriage of justice.

b)That the judgment is against the weight of evidence.

c)That the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that 2nd Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent is guilty of estoppel by laches and acquiescence.

d)That the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that 2nd Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent is guilty of unjust enrichment.

e)That the Court of Appeal erred in holding that 2nd Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent is entitled to the recovery of possession of the disputed land with all the developments carried on the land by the 1st Defendant/Appellant/Appellant in good faith after providing valuable consideration.

Additional grounds of appeal to be filed upon receipt of the record of proceedings.

On 7th March 2019, the Defendant with the leave of this Court filed additional ground of appeal which states that:

f)The Plaintiffs have no locus standi or capacity to sue 1st Defendant/Appellant/Appellant herein in respect of the Land in dispute which is said to form part of the estate of Franz Kudzordzi (Deceased) for and on behalf of the children of the said deceased person by operation of law.

In this appeal the parties would maintain their designations at the trial court. Consequently, the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs would be referred to simply as 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant as Defendant.

Before going into the arguments advanced in support and against this appeal, we will give the background of the case.

By their Writ of Summons, plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant for the following reliefs:

1.Recovery of Possession of all that piece or parcel of land the subject matter of a leasehold agreement registered in the Deeds Registry as 196/1975 which piece or parcel of land is bounded as follows:

On the North-East by Dugbadza Market;

On the South-West by Road to Dome;

On the North-West by Ho to Dome Road and

On the South- East by Lorry Park.

2.Damages for Trespass

3.Damages for breach of contract.

4.Further or other reliefs.

In their 9 paragraph