MUSAH MAHMUDA AND MUSAH SEIDU v. MUSAH MUMUNI

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. This judgment relates to recovery of property.

2. The plaintiffs and defendant are siblings, all sons of the late Choggu Dunyin Naa,

Musah Adam. On 25th April, 2022 the plaintiffs instituted this action against the

defendant for the following reliefs:

“a. Recovery of Ferguson Tractor 290, with serial number 0245073 which the

defendant fraudulently took from police possession without the consent of

plaintiffs.

b. An order of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant, his assigns or

representatives from use or dispose of the said tractor, which is lawful

property of plaintiffs’ family.

c. General damages.

d. Costs and any other relief this Honourable Court deems fit.”

3. Subsequent to the above, the plaintiff filed an application for interim preservation of

the said property. The defendant opposed to the application on grounds that the said

property had been disposed of. Consequently, the court dismissed the application

for interim preservation. The defendant maintained that the said property belonged

to him.

4. Parties subsequently filed their respective witness statements, which I will

summarize below.

PLAINTIFFS’ CASE

nd Plaintiff testified on behalf of the plaintiffs saying that sometime in 2017 the family

decided to use the proceeds of the late Choggu Dunyin Naa, Musah Adam’s estate

to acquire a farm tractor. As a result, they got one at an agreed price of GHS39,000.00

to be paid within six (6) months. Plaintiffs stated that the retailer, Alhassan Yakubu

Kasuli, promised to hand over the documents of the tractor only after receiving full

payment. Plaintiffs say that they kept regular with the installment payments, save

the last payment. Hence, when they got money to pay the last installment, they

discovered that the defendant had gone to pay and taken possession of the

documents. Plaintiffs contended that 2

nd plaintiff was in possession of the tractor on

a farmland somewhere in June 2021 when he (2nd plaintiff) received an invitation

from the police regarding the tractor as being stolen. He added that the police took

possession of the tractor and advised the parties herein to settle their differences.

However, the defendant fraudulently prepared the tractor documents and took

possession of the tractor without their notice. Hence, this action in court.

Plaintiffs’ witness

6. Plaintiffs called a witness, Musah Sanatu (PW1) who is the mother of the parties

herein. She submitted that