Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
FACTS
The plaintiff caused a writ of summons to issue against the defendants on 22nd
February, 2022, claiming against the defendants the following reliefs;
1. A declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of house number AX 41
Community 7, Tema.
2. An order directed at the 2nd defendant to effect transfer of house
number AX 41 Community 7, Tema into the Plaintiff’s name.
3. An order for costs.2
The plaintiff’s case is that in the year 1980, she was living in house number
AX 41 Community 7, Tema with the 1st defendant who was a brother of her
bossom friend. The first defendant received money as a token of
appreciation, left her in occupation of the property and left Tema for good. In
the same year that the 1st defendant left, he applied to the 2nd defendant with a
supporting statutory declaration, to transfer the property into the plaintiff’s
name. The plaintiff also supported the 1st defendant’s application with a
similar statutory declaration to that effect. The plaintiff avers that she has
since been in occupation and possession of the house in dispute and paid all
utilities, property rate, electricity, water, Development permit fee, in her own
name etc. The plaintiff further states that throughout this period, she never
received a letter from the 2nd defendant requesting her to fill an application for
transfer of ownership. As a result, the house still remains in the name of the
1st defendant. The 2nd defendant informed her that it is only by a court order
that the property will be transferred in the name of the plaintiff.
The writ of summons and the statement of claim were duly served on the 1st
defendant by substituted service including publication in the Daily Graphic
issue of Friday, May 20, 2022 page 30 when personal service proved futile but
the 1st defendant failed to enter appearance and to appear to contest the suit.
The second defendant on the other hand entered appearance and filed a
defence on 28th June, 2022. The gravamen of the defence put up by the 2nd
defendant is that it is not aware of the transaction between the plaintiff and
the first defendant. The 2nd defendant admits that the 1st defendant applied to
it with supporting statutory declaration to transfer the property in the
plaintiff’s name and the plaintiff also filled a similar statutory declaration. The3
2nd defendant avers that unfortunately, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant did
not avail themselves to complete the transfer proce