MR. & MRS. AMOAKO-ASANTE & ors VS JONATHAN AYAA ANNAN

Plaintiffs’ Case It is the plaintiffs’ case that the defendant is the head of the Odai Ntow family which family has an extensive stretch of land in New Ashongman.

The plaintiffs assert that in or around February 2004, they, acting through their sister and in-law Arianna Ohenebema Agyepong Ansah (Mrs. ), approached the defendant to acquire plots of land in the New Ashongman area.

The defendant then agreed to give various plots of lands of different sizes to plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs assert that the defendant furnished them with a document based on which a search was conducted at the Lands Commission which revealed that the land belonged to defendant and his family.

Plaintiffs further assert that the defendant transferred to them a total of six plots of land of various dimensions at New Ashongman.

Each of the plots cost eighteen million old cedis (now GH¢1, 800. 00) except that of the 2nd plaintiff which cost nineteen million old cedis (now GH¢1, 900. 00). The plaintiffs assert that they advanced a total of one hundred and ten million old cedis (now GH¢11, 000. 00) through Arianna Ohenebema Agyepong Ansah to defendant covering the six plots of land.

Plaintiffs say that defendant prepared indentures and site plans covering the various lands for them.

Plaintiffs contend that when they went to commence development on their lands, they were attacked by land guards wielding guns and other weapons.

Plaintiffs say that the matter was reported to the defendant who told them to secure their interests.

Plaintiffs therefore began registration processes of their interests in the land at the Deeds Registry and the Land Title Registry for which huge sums of money were expended.

Plaintiffs contend further that, sometime in 2007, the defendant called plaintiffs on phone to inform them that he was in a legal tussle with a section of his family over ownership of the land.

He therefore asked the plaintiffs to hold on with any development on the land until the completion of the suit.

Later on however, the defendant called to say that he had lost the case but he promised to replace the plaintiffs’ plots of land with other plots of land at Pokuase which promise never materialised.

The plaintiffs therefore demanded a refund of their monies but the defendant refused, ignored and treated with scorn the plaintiffs call on him for the refund.

Plaintiffs also say that they are no longer interested in the plots of land but they are rather demanding full compensation for monie