Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
MARFUL-SAU, JA: - On the 11th of April 2008 the Plaintiff who is the appellant herein caused a writ of summons to be issued against the defendants who are the respondents herein. The writ itself was endorsed with 8 reliefs namely:-
‘’a .A declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land together with buildings thereon situate, lying and being at Cape Coast in the Central Region of Ghana and bounded as follows:
i) On the North by Sarbah Road measuring 110 feet more or less.
ii) On the South by open space measuring 97feet more or less
iii) On the East by open space measuring 46 feet more or less.
iv) On the West by Tantri road measuring 140 feet more or less and having an approximate area of 0.28 acres.
b. An order setting aside the unlawful transfer of the said property to the 1st and 4th defendants.
c. An order to the 3rd defendant to cancel the unlawful registration of the said land in the names of the 1st and 4th defendants.
d. An order to the 5th defendant to cancel the names of the 1st and 4th defendants from its records as the owners of the said land.
e. General damages for trespass against the 1st and 4th defendants
f. An order for recovery of $ 32,400 or its cedi equivalent from 1st defendant being rent arrears with interest.
g. An order for recovery of possession
h. An order of perpetual injunction against all the defendants, their agents, assigns, servants, workmen and all persons claiming through them, restraining them from in any way interfering with the property in dispute.’’
The parties as usual exchanged pleadings and the 4th respondent in her statement of defence stated at paragraph 24 as follows:-
‘’24. 4th Defendant denies paragraph 34 of the Statement of Claim and contends that the Plaintiff has never owned the disputed property and therefore lacks the legal capacity to institute the instant action and the 4th Defendant will raise the issue of the lack of capacity of Plaintiff to institute this action as a preliminary point of law to be determined.’’
The appellant in her Reply to the above pleading from the 4th respondent denied that she had no capacity. Then on the 24th January 2011, the 4th respondent through her counsel filed a motion praying the court to set down the issue of appellant’s capacity to be determined by legal argument. The motion was argued and the trial High Court delivered a ruling on 17th February 2011. In the concluding part of the ruling which is at page 336 of the record of appeal, t