OPPONG KYEKYEKU v. DEPARTMENT OF URBAN ROADS & 2 ORS

JUDGMENT

By his amended writ of summons and statement of claim filed on 04/07/2011, the Plaintiff herein claimed against the Defendants herein jointly and severally for these reliefs:

Loss of rental income from the building amounting to GH¢ 108,000.00

Interest on the loan contracted to finance the building amounting to 72,000 Euros or its cedi equivalent on the day of payment

Depreciation and deterioration in the physical structure of the building amounting to GH¢37,000

Escalation in the cost of completing the building estimated to be GH¢70,000.00

General damages for breach of contract between the parties

Costs

Any other reliefs.

A summary of the Plaintiff’s case is that he acquired a piece of land at Brunkon in the Kwabre District of the Ashanti Region described as Plot numbers 2 and 4 block IV. Between the year 2000 and 2001, he sourced funding and commenced the construction of a two storey residential house. By 2002, the building had reached roofing level but the 1st Defendant caused it to be marked for demolition as No. DUR/RRP/BR 14 and also stopped the construction. In 2007, the 1st Defendant confirmed its notice to the Plaintiff that his property had been affected by the proposed Kumasi Outer Ring Road project and would be demolished. Consequent to this, Plaintiff was requested to submit his indenture and other documents of ownership on the property to the Kumasi Metropolitan Roads Engineer for onward transmission to the 2nd Defendant for assessment of compensation. In April, 2009, the 2nd Defendant communicated the assessed value to the Plaintiff and requested him to indicate his acceptance which he did. Plaintiff then cancelled all arrangements for completion of the building. In April 2011, the Defendants issued a circular to the effect that the road project had been reviewed and advised all claimants for compensation, including the Plaintiff, to continue their projects. It was the Plaintiff’s case that his building, which had been left at the mercy of the weather, has seriously deteriorated. The prices of building materials have also shot up over 100% from the 2002 levels and the loan which he contracted to put up the building continue to attract interest. He also intended to rent out the house and is therefore claiming loss of rental income.

The Plaintiff’s assertion that the 1st Defendant marked his property for demolition in the year 2002 did not do down well with the 1st and 3rd Defendants.

Having denied this assertion, they pleade