2019
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an appeal against a High Court judgment regarding compensation for compulsorily acquired land. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but modified the lower court's order. It held that while the Appellant failed to prove payment of compensation, the Respondents' long delay in claiming it and continued occupation of the land made enforcing the original award inequitable. The Court ordered that undeveloped and occupied parcels within the Respondents' interest area be protected from the Appellant's interference, issuing a perpetual injunction to this effect. The decision balances statutory land acquisition principles with equitable considerations, addressing the complexities arising from changed land use and prolonged occupation following a historical compulsory acquisition.
TANKO AMADU J. A
(1) The 2nd Defendant/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the“Appellant”) dissatisfied with an aspect of the judgment of the High Court (Land Division) dated the 22nd day of February, 2017, filed a Notice of Appeal on 12th April, 2017 against a part of the said Judgment.
The Notice of Appeal aforesaid can be found on pages 627 through to page 629 of the Record of Appeal.
Even though the Notice of Appeal does not state specifically which part(s) of the Judgment the Appellant is appealing against, we are guided in that respect by the grounds of appeal as set out in the said notice.
ii) The Learned Trial Judge erred when he failed, refused or neglected to consider the pleadings of 2nd Defendant/Appellant prior to concluding that 4th and 5th Defendants/Respondents compensation claim was not denied by 2nd Defendant/Appellant.
iii) The Learned Trial Judge erred in dismissing the 2nd Defendant/Appellant’s request for an Order directed at the Plaintiffs to render account for the grants Plaintiffs have made over portions of the disputed land. ”It is important to state that the Appellant has in its submissions notified this Court that it has abandoned the leg of its appeal founded on ground (iii) above.
The background to this appeal is that the 1st Plaintiff who is the 1st Respondent to this appeal and who is hereinafter conveniently referred to as “the 1st Respondent” commenced action on 9th September, 2009 against the 1st Defendant on record who is a grantee of the Appellant.
By reason of a number of orders for joinder of parties made by the Trial Court, the original Writ of Summons was amended severally.
The resultant status of the parties was that the 1st Respondent’s action had 4 more Defendants in addition to the 1st Defendant on record.
The 4th and 5th Defendants on record are the 3rd and 4th Respondents in the instant appeal.
The 2nd Respondent in the instant appeal who happens to be the head of the Apaintse We was joined to the 1st Respondent as 2nd Plaintiff in the original action.
It is the determination of the counterclaim by the Trial Court in favour of the 3rd and 4th Respondents herein which has