2024
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Plaintiffs filed a writ in 2018 for possessory title to the land, alleging defendants' fraudulent acquisition of a title certificate. Defendants' motion to dismiss the suit on grounds of res judicata, frivolousness, and vexation was refused by the high court, and affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that the dismissal application was premature and the trial court exercised proper discretion. The appeal was dismissed, with a need for full pleadings and evidence noted.
LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC:
In this judgment, the 2nd to 4th appellants will be described as defendants and the 1st to 5th respondents as plaintiffs.
On 16th January 2018, the plaintiffs in this case issued a writ at the high court for ten reliefs. See pages 1 to 13 of volume one of the record of appeal (ROA).
The defendants entered appearance on 10th April 2018 and thereafter a defence was filed for them. See pages 16 to 18 of the ROA.
The import and gist of the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs was that 1st plaintiff’s family held title to the land the subject matter of the writ, which title had been confirmed by many judgments of the courts, and that 2nd to 5th plaintiffs were their lessees.
They contend that the defendants having only been decreed a possessory title by the Supreme Court, the land title certificate acquired by the defendants from the 1st defendant/ Commission on the basis of that judgment was fraudulently obtained.
By their pleadings, the defendants stated that the ownership of the subject matter of the writ had been settled by decisions of the High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court and that having been adjudged the owners of the land they had a right to register their title to it.
The defendants after this filed a motion seeking a dismissal of the suit on the grounds that not only was it frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of court process, it was also res judicata. The plaintiffs opposed the application.
The High Court after going through the law governing the above reliefs sought, ruled that in the circumstances of the case (such as the fact that the defendants had only been given possessory title by the Supreme Court, the measurements of the land in dispute are different from that of the judgment being relied upon by the applicants), refused the application on 4th April 2019 and stated that this was a case in which it was better for pleadings to be filed and issues settled so that at the stage of the application for directions, the “grounds of objection raised could be better determined”. The court then proceeded to dismiss the application subject to the above.
It is worthy of note that the defendants had already filed their defence and what was left, if necessary and within time was a reply by the plaintiffs and the hearing of the application for directions at which stage, the defendants, according to the court, could repeat their application to dismiss. In spite of this, the Defendants chose, as it was within their rig