2023
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff, who acquired land from the Ashong Mlitse Family of Odaitse We, Teshie, for GH¢3,200 in 2000, later faced disputes over the land when another development ensued by the 2nd Defendant who sold to the 3rd Defendant. The High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting reliefs such as declaration of ownership, recovery of possession, and damages for fraud. The Appeal Court upheld this decision. The 3rd Defendant then appealed on the grounds that the judgment was against the weight of evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, restating that the plaintiff validly acquired and took possession of the land in 2000, and the subsequent sales were void as the grants were from parties who no longer had title to convey. The legal principles underline how appellate review must consider the entire evidence and related laws; and the nemo dat quod non habet principle that invalidates transfers where the seller lacks title. Furthermore, improperly stamped documents are inadmissible as evidence. Despite minor inconsistencies, the critical mass of evidence supported the plaintiff’s claim.
KOOMSON JSC: -
This is an appeal from the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on the 14th June, 2021, on an appeal by the 3rd Defendant/Appellant/Appellant (herein after called “3rd Defendant”) from the decision of the trial High Court dated 31st October, 2018, which had entered judgment for the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent (hereafter called“the Plaintiff”) on all her reliefs.
The facts leading to the commencement of the original action at the High Court are that, in the year 2000, the plaintiff acquired a parcel of land from the Ashong Mlitse We of Teshie.
The Plaintiff stated that she acquired the land in dispute from one Seth Laryea Mensah, head and lawful representative of the Ashong Mlitse Family of Odaitse We of Teshie upon the payment of GH¢3, 200. 00 or ¢32, 000. 000. 00 in the year 2000. The said Seth Laryea Mensah happened to be the predecessor of the 4th Defendant.
The Plaintiff said that a receipt was issued for the payment of the ¢32, 000. 000. 00. She immediately took possession of the land, cleared it of bushes, erected a wall around the land and built a structure thereon.
She then placed a caretaker by name Noah Agusah on the land as he was made to occupy the single room on the land.
The Plaintiff stated further that two years after her acquisition of the land, she noticed that someone had commenced development of a portion of her land.
According to the Plaintiff, her enquiries revealed that her land had been sold to the 2nd Defendant by the 1st Defendant.
The Plaintiff contended further that, further enquiries made revealed that it was the 2nd Defendant who had also sold it to the 3rd Defendant and that it was the 3rd Defendant who was developing the land through a developer called Austin Wilson.
The Plaintiff stated further that when her protestations were not heeded to by the Defendants, she instituted the present action in the High Court claiming the reliefs indorsed on her writ of summons, namely: “(a) Declaration that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the land described in the statement of claim, the subject matter of this action.
b) Recovery of possession of the land(c) Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants, agents, privies, workmen, assigns, beneficiaries from ever entering the property.
d) An order to pull down any structure built on the land for or at the instance of any of the Defendants or their agents, servants, workmen, assign etc.
e) General damages for fraud(f) An order to cancel any l