MADAM LINDA SAGOE & ORS v. SOCIAL SECURITY AND NATIONAL INSURANCE TRUST (SSNIT)

J U D G M E N T

GBADEGBE, JSC;

My Lords, by the appeal herein, the plaintiffs seek a reversal of the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal that allowed in favour of the defendants an appeal from the decision of an Accra High Court. It appears from the decision with which we are concerned in these proceedings that the learned justices of the Court of Appeal came to the conclusion on the evidence that the plaintiffs had failed to discharge the burden of proof that they assumed in the matter. Consequently, they dismissed the claim of the plaintiffs and entered judgment in favour of the defendant but limited only to part of their counterclaim. The facts relevant to our determination in these proceedings are as follows.

The plaintiffs desirous of putting up residential dwellings severally negotiated the purchase from the James Town Stool, Accra of various plots of land within an area called Dunkonaa in the Greater Accra Region. The negotiations and purchase of the said plots according to the pleadings filed on their behalf took place on different dates between 1990 to 2004. The defendant corporation was in or about the year 1996 allocated portions of land that had been previously acquired by the government under EI 5 of 1993. The said acquisition was made primarily for the benefit of members of Ghana Real Estate Development Association (GREDA) but when they were unable to meet the requirements of the grant to them the government allocated 507.75 acres out of the 586.25 acres of the land compulsorily acquiredto the defendant. The allocation to the defendant was by means of a lease commencing from 1 November 1996 for a term of 99 years.

As a result of the grant of the leasehold to the defendant by the Lands Commission, the defendant was obliged to pay compensation to the previous owners, the James Town Stool. In the course of its entry on the land, the defendant noticed several acts of encroachment in the form of building works on the land. The defendant caused notices to be served on the developers and when the matter could not be peaceably resolved, it caused the buildings on the land to be demolished. The plaintiffs claiming to be the owners of the properties demolished took out the action herein claiming general and special damages and a declaration that the defendant in utilising the area allocated to it had exceeded same by 43.30 acres as well as an order of perpetual injunction. Also claimed by the plaintiffs was an order of cancellation of the Lan