NANA AMOATENG & ORS v. JOHN AGYEKUM & ORS
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- E. K. Ayebi (Presiding), JA
- Gertrude Torkornoo, (Mrs.), JA
- Angelina M. Domakyaareh (Mrs.), JA
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The consolidated case revolved around the Kagyaase Stool land, where the plaintiffs, as lessees, filed against State Housing Company Ltd (SHC) for trespass and damages. SHC counter-claimed title based on a lease they contended was valid and allowed for estate development, yet had breached covenants. The trial High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them specific plots and damages. SHC's appeal for a stay of execution was dismissed by the appellate court, emphasizing that a stay requires exceptional circumstances and that non-party actions do not justify altering the judgment's executability.
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