PRISCILLA AMANOR & ANOR vs TEMA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ANOR
March 14, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP, JUSTICE GIFTY AGYEI ADDO, HIGH COURT JUDGE
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Administrative Law
- Tort Law
March 14, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This High Court dispute concerns a single plot at Zenu within the Tema Acquisition Area, originally acquired by the Government and administered by the Tema Development Corporation (TDC). The 1st Plaintiff purchased the plot from the 2nd Plaintiff, Ibrahim Mensah Adjetey, in 2004 and built a residence. TDC claimed it had reserved blocks for chiefs and released land to Adjetey, but the 2nd Plaintiff’s application, site plan, and invitation letter were found not to convey legal title, and the unapproved site plans violated L.I. 1444. The 2nd Defendant’s documents reflected only a proposed TDC lease and no development, so he lacked legal title. Recognizing the strength of possession, the Court held the 1st Plaintiff’s possessory title prevails. TDC’s demolition lacked proper notice and authority and violated Article 18. The Court awarded GH₵8,000 general damages and GH₵7,000 costs, dismissed the 2nd Plaintiff’s title claims, and granted TDC’s counterclaim declaring Zenu within the Acquisition Area while dismissing other counter-reliefs.
On the 21st of March 1956, per Exhibit “2”, the 1st Defendant executed an indenture with the Government of the Gold Coast in respect of all that piece or parcel of land in extent 63 square miles at Tema, in the then Accra Region, now Greater Accra Region.
The land was compulsorily acquired by the Government of the Gold Coast, per Exhibit “2” page 163, under Section 4 of the Ordinance No. 38 of 1952 to develop a New Town and Port at Tema for the purposes connected therewith and for the use and benefit of the people of the Gold Coast. This larger land itself is not the subject of the instant suit.
However, the land, the subject of the suit, forms part of the Tema Acquisition Area situate at a suburb known as Zenu.
The suit has arisen following the purchase of the disputed plot from the 2nd Plaintiff by the 1st Plaintiff.
The 1st Plaintiff, pursuant to the said purchase, constructed a residential property thereon.
The 2nd Defendant challenged the possession and occupation of the 1st Plaintiff on the plot of land on the basis that same is one of the four plots of land that belongs to him.
According to the 2nd Defendant, he bought the land as a vacant land in 2002 from the Chief of Zenu who has the authority to alienate the land through the Tema Paramount Stool, with the consent of the 1st Defendant.
In the case of the 1st Defendant, it stated that it allocated a portion of its said land to the 2nd Plaintiff upon a realisation that he and his predecessors had possessed the land over the years.
The 1st Defendant further stated that in order to enlist the support of sub-chiefs and paramount chiefs within the Acquisition Area to its development schemes and to curb encroachment of its land by inhabitants of the stool, the 1st Defendant by practice, reserved portions of its land to the respective chiefs for allocations to indigenes.
In accordance with the said practice, the 1st Defendant averred that through the Tema Traditional Council, it released a portion of its land at Zenu described as Block J Nos. 41-66 to Ibrahim Mensah Adjetey (the 2nd Plaintiff), Block K Nos. 1-38 to the Chief of Zenu as well as to the paramount chief of Tema, Nii Adjei Okraku II, Block J Nos. 1-40 and markets Nos. 9 – 13, which they all accepted.
In this wise, what the 1st Defendant is saying is that the land the 2nd Plaintiff granted to the 1st Plaintiff is comprised within Block J Nos. 41-66 and not Plot No. 37 within Block K. The question is, did the 1st Defendant allocate pl