NII OTU AKWETEY IX & ORS. v. SETH OTU OKLEY & ORS.

ACKAH-YENSU, JA

This is an interlocutory appeal from the Ruling of the High Court (Land Division) Accra dated 22/11/2017.

BACKGROUND FACTS:

The summary of facts giving rise to the Appeal is as follows: - By an Amended Writ issued on 22/5/2017, the Plaintiffs (Respondents herein) claimed from the Defendants (Appellants herein) the following reliefs:-

“a) A declaration that the registration of the Statutory Declaration of the 1st and 2nd Defendants was fraudulent.

b) Recovery of possession of all lands fraudulently disposed of by the Defendants.

c) An order directed at the Lands Commission to expunge from its records the said registration and restore such lands to the Katamanso Stool.

d) Perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants from alienating disposing of or dealing with the said parcels of land in any way inconsistent with the ownership rights of the Katamanso Stool.

e) Costs”

In their Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs traced their interest in the subject matter by pleading inter alia that the Katamanso Stool on which locus they seek relief is a Sub-Stool under the Nungua Stool, are together ancestral owners of a large tract of land measuring several acres situate and being at Katamanso a suburb of Accra, and forming part of Nungua Stool Lands of which the land in dispute is a part. They further rely on two (2) judgments in Suit Nos. L.326/75 and FAL/363/13 in the cases of NII ODAI AYIKU IV VS. NII LARYEA AKWETEY VII & NUMO NMASHIE & ASHIYIE FAMILIES OF TESHIE VS. BENJAIMN QUARSHIE MENSAH & 2 ORS. respectively. The Plaintiffs pleaded fraud against the Defendants and have set out the particulars thereof.

In a Statement of Defence filed on 7/6/2017, the Plaintiffs’ averments as contained in the Statement of Claim were vehemently denied. The Defendants pleaded inter alia their proprietorship in the subject matter per Land Certificate No.TD/2221/13 issued in their favour on 2/4/2013 for an area covering in extent 657.829 hectors (1,625,474 acres). The 3rd Defendant also filed a Statement of Defence in which it denied the Plaintiffs’ allegation of fraud and pleaded further that the land in dispute was duly registered by the 1st and 2nd Defendants, and further that third parties have since acquired their interests from the duly certified title of the 1st and 2nd Defendants. The 3rd Defendant averred further that at the time the 1st and 2nd Defendants’ Title Certificate was processed and issued, there were three objections including