JUSTICE NII ARYEETEY v. STATE HOUSING COMPANY LIMITED
July 16, 2010
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE S. H. OCRAN
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Administrative Law
July 16, 2010
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case concerns land at Achimota, Accra, where Clement Dodo Aryetey, as head of the family of Emmanuel Joshua Aryeetey (deceased), sought recovery of possession, damages for trespass, and a perpetual injunction against an estate developer. The plaintiff’s pleadings asserted family ownership but omitted the root of title, while the defendant maintained it operated on land compulsorily acquired by the government. The court examined Exhibit B, a conveyance registered under Cap 133 describing a 1,500‑foot square plot, and appointed a regional surveyor from the Lands Commission to produce a composite plan comparing the plaintiff’s claim, Exhibit B, E.I. 61, and the developed estate. The survey showed the plaintiff identified a larger rectangle than Exhibit B and that, when properly demarcated, the plaintiff’s land lay outside the developed estate. Applying precedents requiring precise land identification and the statutory effect of compulsory acquisition under Act 125, the court dismissed the claims.
The Plaintiff by his writ of Summons issued on 16th June, 2006, claimed the following.
Recovery of possession of all that piece and parcel of land lying and situate at Achimota, Accra bounded on the North West by the Onomorinkor-Adang-Kole We family land, measuring 1500 feet more or less, on the South-East by the Onomorinkor-Adang-Kole-We family land measuring 1500 feet more or less, on the North-East by the Accra-Nsawam Road, measuring 1500 feet more or less and on the South-West by the Onomorinkor –Adang-Kole-We family land and comprising an area of 51.653 acre and registered in the Deeds Registry "A as No. 880/1946.
Damages for Trespass.
Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendant, their servants, agents and assigns from interfering with the said land.
The Statement of Claim that accompanied the writ stated that the Plaintiff was the head and lawful representative of the family of Emmanuel Joshua Aryeetey (deceased) who owned the land. The statement of claim did not however state how Emmanuel Joshua Aryeetey came by the land. The Statement of Claim stated further that the defendant, without the consent of the Plaintiff entered upon the land and took possession. Paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim stated further that "the land had not been used for the purpose for which the Defendant took possession thereof.
In the Defendants Statement of Defence, almost all the stated facts in the Statement of Claim were denied. The Defendant however stated that the land on which it is operating was acquired by virtue of a compulsory Government acquisition. The Defendant stated further that if the Plaintiff had not been paid compensation, then the Defendant cannot be held responsible but the Government being the acquiring authority.
In the Plaintiffs reply to the statement of Defence, the plaintiff challenged the Defendant on its claim that the Government acquired the land for the Defendant. At the close of the pleadings the following issues were set down for resolution.
a) Whether or not the Plaintiff is the head and lawful representative of the family of Emmanuel Joshua Aryeetey (deceased)
b) Whether Emmanuel Joshua Aryetey (deceased) was the owner of the land in issue
c) Whether or not the Defendant is the beneficial owner of the land in issue pursuant to a compulsory government acquisition.
d) Whether or not any compensation was paid to the Plaintiff pursuant to any Government acquisition of the land in i