REV. NANA ADJEI NTOW v. GEORGE ARTHUR

DZAMEFE, JA

This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Sunyani Brong Ahafo dated 27th April, 2013.

The plaintiff in that suit, herein after referred to as the appellant issued the writ against the defendant, referred to as the respondent for the following reliefs; -

1. An ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining George Arthur from interfering or otherwise dealing with the plaintiff’s house on Plot No. D10/2, Central Area Sunyani.

2. A declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the house or buildings on Plot No. D10/2, Central Area, Sunyani.

3. Recovery of possession of all the ten (10) storerooms and an office space the plaintiff permitted the defendant to let out and use the proceeds to pay off the defendants indebtedness.

4. Any other reliefs as the honourable court may deem fit to make.

The plaintiff/appellant in his statement of claim, said he is the Chief Executive of Access toJustice in Ghana, a Human Rights based Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) and resides in Sunyani in the Brong Ahafo Region of the Republic of Ghana, while the defendant/respondent was a former footballer who lived in Sunyani while alive.

The appellant averred that he is the only lawful owner of the entire leased land plot No. D10/2, Central Area Sunyani, which forms part of the lands which are vested in the President of the Republic of Ghana by virtue of the Executive Instrument No. 46/1961. He said that land is the subject matter of a 99-year lease dated 8th November, 2010 and made before the Republic of Ghana in trust for the Sunyani Stool and Nana Adjei Ntow (Appellant) which was registered on 11th November, 2010 under title No.8607 and serial No. 463/10. It is plaintiffs claim that the land in issue is his and so anything on the land as well belong to him. [ page 2 ROA].

Appellant avers further that, the defendant herein does not have any right to carry himself as the co-owner of his leased property, but has been wrongfully carrying himself as the co-owner of the landedproperty. It is his case that the defendant herein does not have any legitimate interest in his leased property, but he is maliciously and repeatedly claiming an interest in it.

Appellant avers that the respondent has completely disregarded his informal and formal written advice asking him to desist from laying adverse claim or dealing with the land in issue. That unless prevented by the High Court, the defendant is determined to continue on with his misdeeds regarding the lan