NANA AMOATENG & ORS v. JOHN AGYEKUM & ORS
October 11, 2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- E. K. Ayebi (Presiding), JA
- Gertrude Torkornoo, (Mrs.), JA
- Angelina M. Domakyaareh (Mrs.), JA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
October 11, 2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Presiding Justice E.K. Ayebi, with Irene C. Larbi and A.M. Domakyaareh concurring, decided a motion by State Housing Company Ltd. (SHC) to stay execution of two High Court judgments concerning Kagyaase Stool land pending appeal. SHC had obtained an allocation note endorsed by the Otumfuo Asantehene and a 2005 lease over 107 acres, and developed roughly 30%. After alleging SHC breached covenants (including failing to register and pay rent through the Administrator of Stool Lands), the Kagyaase Stool re-entered under section 29 of the Conveyancing Act and reallocated undeveloped portions to new developers, including the plaintiffs. The High Court dismissed SHC’s counterclaims and granted plot-specific declarations, damages, injunctions, and removal orders. On appeal, SHC argued that ongoing allocations would prejudice its investment. The Court of Appeal, applying Appah vrs Barnor and Eboe vrs Eboe, held that no exceptional circumstances existed; the judgments were in personam, and only successful parties could be restrained. The application was dismissed.
AYEBI, JA
1. This is a consolidated suit determined by the trial High Court in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents/respondents in both suits.
The subject-matter of the suit involved is the Kagyaase Stool land.
In exception of Nana Amoateng II who was the chief of Kagyase, the defendant and all the plaintiffs in both suits are lessees (grantees)of the Kagyase Stool.
2. The case of the defendant, that is State Housing Company Ltd. in both suits is that in 1995, the Kagyase Stool granted it a right of entry into 107 acres of land.
Upon the entry, it surveyed the land demarcated it into plots, constructed roads and extended water and electricity to it for the purpose of estate development.
In 2000, defendant said it was issued with an allocation note signed by the caretaker chief and endorsed by the Otumfuo Asantehene.
Thereafter, in 2005, a lease confirmed by the Otumfuo was executed in its favour.
By the time of the execution of the lease, the defendant had developed about 30% of the 107 acre land.
It is the case of the defendant that it noticed the presence of the plaintiffs in both suits on portions of the remaining land, undertaking construction even on lanes laid up.
The defendant said it challenged the plaintiffs by removing the structures being put up, hence the plaintiffs’ suit against it.
3. In the first suit number TSOL/16/09, the plaintiffs therein claimed against the defendants: (i) Declaration of title and recovery of possession of plot Numbers 17-37 Block “C” 14 and 16 Block “C”, 37-40 Block 1B and Block “B” Abuakwa Kagyase, Kumasi.
ii) GH¢108, 810. 00 special damages for destruction of plaintiffs fence wall around his twenty building plots with unused blocks, gravel and as well as foundation trenches.
iii) General damages for trespass and inconvenience.
iv) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants whatever, etc.
4. To this claim, the defendants (SHC) counter-claimed as follows: (a) Declaration of title to all that parcel of land comprised in a lease dated 9th March, 2005 made between Kagyase stool, Asantehene and 7th defendants measuring 107 acres which lease was registered at the Lands Commission on 30th March 2005 under title Number 19714 and Serial Number 35/2005.
b) Damages for trespass.
c) An order for recovery of possession.
d) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiffs, their agent and workmen from having anything to do with the 7th defendant’s leased land.
5. In the 2nd suit No. TIRL/K/42