NAA LEWISA NELSON VS SLEDGE DUODU & ANOR
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU (J.)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an application for a stay of execution on a judgment dated January 5, 2023, in a land dispute. The Applicant claims to have had structures on the land before the Respondent's action and initially obtained a lease from a family before discovering it was government land. The Respondent asserts prior possession. The court carefully examined the Applicant's evidence and found numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in the dates and sequence of events presented. The court emphasized that an applicant seeking a stay of execution must demonstrate exceptional circumstances and come to court with clean hands. Finding that the Applicant's case was based on unreliable and potentially misleading evidence, the court dismissed the application for a stay of execution. The court ordered the Applicant to pay costs of 10,000 Ghana Cedis to the Respondent.
In this Application, the Defendants / Applicants are praying for an Order staying Execution of the Judgment of this Court, differently constituted, dated 5th day of January, 2023 pending the determination of the appeal filed.
According to the Applicant, his structures were on the land long before the Respondent instituted his action.
Apparently, he first obtained a lease from the Numo Nmashie Family in June, 2009 and it was during a search he conducted at the Lands Commission with a view of registering his interest before he became aware that the land is a Government Land forming part of the Accra - Tema Motorway Reservation.
Upon discovery of that fact, he took steps to apply to the Lands Commission to regularize his title on 17 - 12 - 2015 and the Lands Commission on 28 - 10 - 2019 wrote to the Accra Metropolitan Assembly to know the zoning status of the land.
Applicant asserts that it was recently that the Respondent put a container on the land, which he objected to.
It is his case that notwithstanding these facts, the Court entered judgment for the Respondent.
The Application was opposed by the Respondent.
He claimed that prior to the commencement of the suit, she was in possession of the land until the Applicant interfered with her enjoyment of same.
It became evident at the trial that the land is a Government Land and Judgment was entered for the Respondent to continue with the enjoyment of her possession at the mercy of the Lands Commission, which is the custodian of Government Lands.
It is the case of the Respondent that the instant Application is unmeritorious with no likelihood of success on appeal.
At paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Affidavit in Opposition, Nana Baafi Yeboah deposed on behalf of the Respondent that the Judgment delivered in the case only sought to maintain the status quo subject of the pleasure of the Lands Commission. “That being the case the instant Application has no legal basis at all since the Orders of the Court, in essence, is merely declaratory, ” he noted.
Before examining the basis of the Application, it must be emphasized that the Respondent’s assertion that the judgment was only declaratory is not factually correct.
From the judgment, the Court granted reliefs (a) and (b) of their reliefs sought while relief (a) is a declaratory relief, (b) is not.
It is common knowledge that an Order for Recovery of Possession is executable through Writ of Possession.
Perhaps, if the Respondent thought she was already in p