Try asking the following...
AKAMBA, JSC:-
This appeal is from the judgment of the Court of Appeal entered against the Defendant/ Appellant/Appellant (hereinafter simply the Defendant) on 21/10/2010 in an action commenced by Plaintiffs/ Respondents/Respondents (hereinafter simply the Plaintiffs) per a writ of summons issued on 23/11/1995.
The Plaintiffs sued the Defendant seeking the following reliefs:
“ i. A Declaration that the sale of H/No C383/2 Amugi Avenue, Adabraka, Accra by a deed of conveyance No 461/1985 to the Defendant by the vendor therein was a fraud and therefore null and void.
A declaration that whether or not the defendant was aware of the fraud, the sale was null and void because the vendor had no power to sell the property and the sale passed no title to the Defendant.
An order of the Court setting aside the sale.
An order of the Court ejecting the Defendant and or his agents forthwith from the house.
Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from exercising any rights of ownership or possession over the property.”
BACKGROUND
The plaintiffs are the children of the late Augustus Kofi Oduro, the undisputed owner of the house in issue. A year after the demise of Augustus Kofi Oduro, the High Court, on 17th December 1982, granted letters of administration to his grandson, Augustus Yaw Oduro to administer the estate. Augustus Yaw Oduro’s letters of administration was however revoked on 23rd March 1983. Eleven years after the aforesaid revocation and precisely on 22nd September 1994, the plaintiffs applied for and were granted new letters of administration to administer the estate. The plaintiffs in the course of administering their late father’s estate discovered that the house in issue had been sold by the discharged administrator. The purported sale was evidenced by a Deed of Conveyance No 461/1985 dated 27th September 1980. The plaintiffs suspected that the vendor and purchaser perpetuated fraud because the recitals in the Deed of Conveyance are inconsistent with the date of execution.
The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The court reasoned that the date of 27/9/1980 on the conveyance was entered for fraudulent reasons and that at the said date the intestate was alive. Another reason advanced was that the conveyance could not have been executed before the date of the re-conveyance in 1984 by which date the letters of administration granted the named vendor had been revoked. It was therefore an attempt to fraudulently conceal this fact th