2014
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Anin Yeboah authored the Supreme Court’s decision in a land dispute between Hydrafoam Estates Ltd and three purchasers who acquired plots from Ranas Odoi Freeman at Nungua, Accra. The purchasers relied on a December 2002 interlocutory/default judgment and an indenture from the Nungua Stool when buying in 2004; Hydrafoam asserted an earlier title through a 1994 lease from Alhaji Komieteh and contended the default judgment was set aside in June 2006. The High Court dismissed the purchasers’ claim and granted Hydrafoam’s counterclaim including damages. The Court of Appeal later allowed the purchasers’ appeal in part, granting possession. On second appeal, the Supreme Court held the Court of Appeal erred by granting a possession order not pleaded and by upholding the bona fide purchaser plea without prudent searches. The Court affirmed dismissal of Hydrafoam’s counterclaim for failure to prove root of title, set aside the possession order, and concluded neither side proved title.
ANIN YEBOAH, JSC:
The plaintiffs/appellants/respondents herein who (shall be referred to in this judgment as the respondents) instituted an action against the defendant/respondent/appellant herein who (shall be referred to in this judgment as the appellant). By their writ of summons sealed on the 7th of October 2008, the respondents claimed against the appellant only one relief as follows:
“Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant company, its agents, assigns, servants, privies and workmen or otherwise howsoever be from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful and quiet enjoyment and possession of their land”
It must be pointed out that the indorsement was not for any substantive relief known in law. No objection was taken by defendant on the recent authority of ROCKSON V ILIOS SHIPPING CO. SA and WILTEX LTD [2010] SCGLR 341 which affirmed this court’s previous decision in R v High Court, Tema; Ex PARTE OWNERS OF MV ESSO SPIRIT (DARYA SHIPPING S.A INTERESTED PARTY) [2003-2004] 2 SCGLR 689 that such a claim is void in law. In this case however, upon reading the writ together with the accompanying Statement of Claim the defect in the writ was cured by the Statement of Claim filed together with the writ. This is the current position of the law as ably expounded by our worthy brother Gbadegbe, JSC in the more recent case of OPOKU [№ 2] v AXES CO. LTD [№ 2] [2012] 2 SCGLR 1214 in which our able brother said as follows:
“The writ of summons ought to be read together with the statement of claim in order to determine if there was any cause of action before the court. This is so because a statement of claim may, in appropriate cases as provided for in rule 15 (2) of Order II of the High Court Civil (Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47), amplify or diminish the scope of the writ on which it is founded”
The defect on the writ was in our view cured by the accompanying statement of claim which was filed together with the writ. The cause of action of the plaintiff was amply pleaded in the Statement of Claim.
THE FACTS
The respondents pleaded among other things, that the first respondent on 27/05/2004 purchased four plots of land measuring 100 * 100 per plot each from one Ranas Odoi Freeman for GH¢40,000.00. Prior to the purchase the first respondent said his vendor showed him a copy of a judgment of a High Court dated the 5/12/2002 declaring ownership in his vendor. His vendor later gave him a copy of an indenture covering the land which had been prepa