NII MANTEY SACKEY & ANOR VS MADAM DOROTHY JOHNSON
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU (J.)
Areas of Law
- Equity and Trusts
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The 2nd Plaintiff’s application for Stay of Execution pending appeal on grounds of the Respondent's fraudulent title acquisition was opposed and eventually dismissed by the Court. The Court noted the Plaintiff's disregard for an existing injunction and actions taken during the pendency of the suit, citing relevant case law which states that equity does not favor those with unclean hands. The Court thus dismissed the application and awarded costs to the Respondent.
The 2nd Plaintiff on 13–11–2023 filed an Application for Stay of Execution of the Judgment pending appeal. The ground of the Application was that the Court in its Judgment found the Respondent’s root of title fraudulently obtained, because the persons who were alleged to have signed the document were dead before the date of execution of the document. For that reason, it was submitted that every step taken pursuant to that fraudulent document is a nullity. In the view of that Applicant, the appeal raises several arguable points of Law such as:
i. Whether a beneficiary of a fraudulent document can be deemed to be an innocent purchaser without notice.
ii. Whether or not the Court has the jurisdiction to order a land owner to regularize an interest of a purported grantee which has been vitiated by fraud.
iii. Whether a Court has the jurisdiction to determine the consideration payable in respect of a lease.
iv. Whether or not a provisional land Title Certificate creates an indefeasible interest in land.
Applicant believes that the application has a greater chance of success since some of his grantees have developed their lands and are in possession. If the execution is not stayed, it will render the appeal nugatory. The Application was opposed by the Respondent. He contended that during the pendency of the substantive suit, one Nour Seklaoui, who was in occupation of the land and entered a notice of claim that was eventually dismissed, entered into unlawful possession of the land and started developing the same. The Court granted interlocutory injunction restraining the parties, their agents, assigns, etc. from having anything to do with the subject matter land pending the determination of the suit. Despite the injunction, the Claimant continued to build.
It was argued further by the Respondent that the Court, differently constituted, made some findings of fact in the Interpleader Application as follows:
a. That the 1st Plaintiff was in the known that the Respondent was already in possession of the subject land at the time he made oral grants to the Claimant.
b. The pendency of the suit notwithstanding, the 2nd grantor went ahead to execute an indenture confirming the oral grant to the Claimant.
c. Despite the existence of an Injunction Order, the 2nd Plaintiff proceeded to execute an indenture for the Claimant.
d. At the time of the Injunction Order, the Claimant had just started with his development on the disputed land but blatantly ignored the Inj