NANA ANTI OWUSU v. ALHAJI ABDUL AZIZ
April 28, 2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- M.OWUSU, (J.A.) - PRESIDING
- HONYENUGA, (J.A.)
- A. OSEI, (J.A
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Tort Law
April 28, 2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this Ghana Court of Appeal decision authored by Mariama Owusu, J.A., the court affirmed the High Court’s judgment declaring title in favour of Nana Anti Owusu over land at Otinshie, East Legon, Accra, and dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim. Owusu traced title through a 2005 assignment and a 2005 lease granted by Dr. T. A. Osae and E. A. Afutu to his daughter, Sarah Naana Kwansiman, with Land Certificates issued in 2009. The defendant alleged a 1994 grant from the Numo Nmashie family and later attornment to the Tsie We/Kle Musum Quarter, and raised grounds including limitation, fraud, and invalidity of the minor’s lease and certificates. The Court held that all pre–4 June 2004 dealings were unlawful due to state acquisition, but the 2005 lease post–E.I. 8 was valid; the defendant’s possession did not satisfy the twelve-year adverse possession threshold; fraud was not proved; presumption of advancement validated the child’s lease; and Land Certificates were properly issued under PNDCL 152. Relying on the Supreme Court’s determination that Otinshie lands belong to the Osae family, the court dismissed the appeal.
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.:
On 28th February, 2014, the High Court, Land Division, Accra, gave judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed as not proved. The trial Judge held among other things as follows:
“The court concludes that the plaintiff was able to prove his reliefs against the defendant on the balance of probabilities. The court hereby enters judgment in respect of all his reliefs, except on the relief of general damages, which is refused, in order not to worsen the already bad situation of the defendant.
1. The plaintiff is hereby declared (sic) the title owner of the subject plots, better described in the leases and the land certificates Exhibits A, A1 and B and B1.
2. The plaintiff is granted leave to recover the subject lands from the defendant.
3. The defendant, his agents, assigns, workmen and all claiming through him are hereby perpetually restrained from entering the subject land, or developing it or dealing with it in any manner or form.
Cost of Gh¢5,000.00 is allowed against the defendant.”
Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:
a. The trial Judge erred in law and in fact by failing to consider that the plaintiff’s action is statute barred.
b. The trial Judge erred in failing to consider the issue of fraud and also to hold that the plaintiff’s grants and their subsequent registration is fraudulent.
c. The trial Judge erred in declaring the plaintiff owner of the land in dispute.
d. The trial Judge erred in fact and in law in holding that the land in dispute forms part of the land the Supreme Court adjudged to belong to the Osae family in the Dr. Osae’s case.
e. The trial Judge erred in law in failing to hold that the plaintiff daughter and a minor could not enter into a contract by executing Exhibit ‘A1’ (indenture of plaintiff) and also annul same.
f. The trial Judge erred in law by failing to cancel the certificates of the plaintiff obtained during the pendency of the instant case.
g. The trial Judge erred in refusing to grant the counterclaim of the defendant.
h. The judgment is against the weight of evidence.
i. Additional grounds of appeal shall be filed upon receipt of the records of appeal.
The reliefs sought by the defendant are:
i. To set aside the judgment delivered by the trial court dated 28th February, 2014 and the cost awarded.
ii. To grant the counterclaim of defendant/appellant.
The background to