February 11, 2009
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court appeal arises from competing claims to House No. 49E/12, Nima, Accra, after the death of purchaser Madam Axorlushie Zomade. Her administrator sued seller Amina Amorkor and co-defendant Fofo Rukiya Laryea seeking declaration of title, possession, ejectment, accounts, and damages, relying on an April 8, 1997 assignment of leasehold, a Land Title Certificate, and a receipt, corroborated by Mash Agbeshie and PW1 Amudzi Roger. The defendants contended Zomade bought only the frontage for shops or was a tenant, invoking family inheritance. A 2002 Circuit Court judgment (Suit No. CCL 73/96) had allocated rooms among heirs, including two rooms to Amorkor. The Supreme Court held res judicata bound the parties by privity and, applying nemo dat, that Amorkor could only convey her two-room share. Affirming the Court of Appeal, the Court clarified Zomade’s successors are entitled to rooms 3 and 4, not the entire house.
J U D G M E N T
ANSAH, JSC:-
The issues in this appeal are very narrow indeed and may briefly be stated as entered on whether the plaintiff bought the whole of the disputed house or only its frontage.
Before deciding on the merits of the appeal, the facts of the case must be stated first. They were that the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for
A declaration of title to the property H/No. 49E/12, Nima, Accra,
Recovery of possession of the said H/No 49/E12, Nima , Accra.
Account for rent collected on the said premises by the Defendant to the plaintiffs.
d Damages.
e. Ejectment against the defendant from house number 49E/12, Nima, Accra,
f. Payment of monies received as rents on the said house from 1st May 1997,
and
g. g. General damages.
The plaintiff claimed the defendant was the owner of House Number 49E/12, Nima, until it was sold to the late deceased Madam Axorlushie Zomade. By a deed between Madam Zomade and the defendant on 8th April 1997, the defendant assigned the residue of the expired term of her leasehold in the house aforementioned, to Madam Zomade for ¢13m (thirteen million cedis), and handed over title deeds on the house to her. As part of the sale agreement, the defendant was to be permitted to continue staying in the house for three years after the sale. Further, a son of Madam Zomade would also come to stay in the house. Madam Zomade indicated she was going to pull down the whole house and build stores on the land and give them to the defendant on rental basis. The son has since then been staying in the house.
On the death of Madam Zomade on 19th January 1999, letters of administration were granted to the plaintiff to administer her estate. When she asked the defendant to leave the house she said the house was never sold to the plaintiff’s mother. The defendant had also been collecting rents in the house.
The defendant denied the claims by the plaintiff and asserted she inherited the premises from her late mother Amorkor Laryea. She the defendant sold a piece of land lying in front of the house to Madam Zomade, for the erection of a block of shops. The sale transaction was reduced into writing and stamped as LVB 5097/98. In a volte face manner the defendant pleaded in paragraph 10 of her statement of defence she was still the owner of the house and denied having ever sold it to the late Madam Zomade. In fact Madam Zomade only rented a hall and a chamber in the defendant’s house numbered 49E/12 formerly known as