The case of the Plaintiff as captured by their Statement of Claim is that the Plaintiff’s family is the recognised owner of all that piece or parcel of land known and called Kwabenya lands.
And that the Defendant is a Limited Liability Company whose Chief Executive is known to the Plaintiff’s family and has previously obtained grants of land from the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff aver that, through its Surveyor, the Defendant approached the family sometime in October, 2015 for a grant of five (5) plots of lands.
And that despite the understanding of the grant, the Defendant either refused or ignored to make payment except for paltry payments as deposit towards the acquisition of the subject matter in dispute.
It is the case of the Plaintiff that the family therefore made several demands for payment and reduced its demands into writing on 5th September 2016 giving the Defendant one (1) week ultimatum to pay for the subject matter in dispute.
Per the said notice, the Plaintiff warned the Defendant of its intention to abrogate the agreement and to refund any monies paid to the family to him.
In consequence thereof, the family re-entered the land and lawfully alienated two (2) plots of the land to one Nelson Opoku of the Ghana Police Service.
The Plaintiff avers that its grantee was officially given an indenture to signify and confirm the grant.
The said grantee again went into immediate possession and has constructed a two (2) storey building thereon.
The Plaintiff say that ever since the grant to Nelson Opoku, the Defendant herein has interfered with the development of Nelson Opoku despite the fact of the family warning him and notifying him of their position.
The Plaintiff say that the Defendant has gone ahead to institute an action in the High Court on the 27th April, 2017 in Suit No. LD/0247/2017 seeking to unjustly annex its land and also to claim the part alienated to the said Nelson Opoku.
Plaintiff says that its attempt to join the said suit was refused hence this action to ventilate its claim and to assert its title lawfully over their family land.
Plaintiff contends that the conduct of the Defendant is fraudulent and hence ought to be so declared by the Honourable Court.
PARTICULARS OF FRAUD i. The Defendant deceived the Plaintiff’s family to execute a deed of lease not having made payment for the parcels of land.
The Defendant with deceit proceeded to register the deed of lease knowing that full consideration had not been made by him.
The
