Nii Commey Dadienko I and Nii Commey v. Glico Properties
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE S. H. OCRAN
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiffs sought declarations of land ownership, injunctions, and damages against the defendant on land in Koffe Bortianor. The court considered both the representative capacity of the plaintiffs and the ownership of the disputed land. It was established that the land fell under government-acquired property from the Bortianor stool, invalidating the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of proper boundaries and capacity to sue, leading to the dismissal of their claims and awarding costs to the defendant.
On 3rd September 2012, the plaintiffs issued out this writ of summons against thedefendant in their capacity as the Chief of Koffe and Solowe Wulomo respectitively.
On29th April 2014, the plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their writ of summons andstatement of claim within 5 days from 29th April 2014. No amended writ of summonswas filed but in the amended statement of claim, the plaintiffs included their reliefs asfollows; a) Declaration that the plaintiffs and the people of Koffe are the equitable owners of the land so described in the schedule below b) An order of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant, its lessor, assignees, agents, workers, and all who cometh unto the land at their instance from interfering in the plaintiffs quiet enjoyment of the land c) Damages for trespass The schedule is as follows; All that piece of land situated and located at Koffe Bortianor, measuring approximately 128. 18 acres and bounded on north by a proposed road measuring 1400 feet more or less, on the south by proposed road measuring 1200 feet more or less, on the east by aproposed road measuring 4600 feet more or less and on the west by a proposed roadmeasuring 4240 feet more or less.
Reading the plaintiffs relief ‘a’ it can be inferred that the plaintiffs instituted this action ina representative capacity and should have endorsed the writ with a representative capacityas required by order 2 rule 4 of C. I 47 which says; 1. Before a writ is filed it shall be indorsed a) Where the plaintiff sues in a representative capacity with a statement of the capacity in which the plaintiff sues.
In Republic vs. High Court, Accra; Exparte Aryeetey (Ankrah Interested Party) (2003-04) SCGLR 398, the Supreme court held in its 2nd headnote that “The requirement that aparty endorses on the writ the capacity in which he sues, is to ensure that a person suingin a representative capacity is actually invested with that capacity and therefore has theright to sue. ”In this case the plaintiffs did not endorse the writ as a representative action but inparagraph 3 of the statement of claim, it was pleaded as follows “the land described in theschedule below is owned and possessed by the people of Koffe, a village near Bortianor.
In paragraph 5 of the statement of claim, it was pleaded that in the year 1959, thegovernment compulsorily acquired same with the intention of using it for irrigationprojects.
By the plaintiffs further pleading, the defendant without the consent of theplai