RICHARD OSAE DUODU v. NANA AMA BENEWAH
August 3, 2010
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- G. M. QUAYE J.A. (PRESIDING)
- C. J. HONYENUGA J.A.
- IRENE DANQUAH J.A
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
- Equity and Trusts
- Tort Law
August 3, 2010
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the Ghana Court of Appeal, Honyenuga J.A. reviewed a land dispute from the High Court, Accra, concerning a parcel at Dome. Samuel Mensah (plaintiff/respondent) bought the land from Emmanuel Roger Amudzi, executed and registered an indenture, and advanced construction. The defendant/appellant claimed a prior purchase from Carl Josiah Reindorf and challenged the respondent’s vendor’s title as fraudulent. A police forensic expert concluded that Reindorf’s signature on the respondent’s vendor’s root deed was forged. Although the trial judge accepted the fraud evidence, he still deemed the respondent an innocent purchaser and prioritized the respondent’s registered instrument. On appeal, the court held that fraud vitiates all transactions, registration under Act 122 does not guarantee title, and the respondent had actual and imputed notice and failed to investigate. The appellate court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the appellant’s counterclaim, and awarded nominal damages of GH2,000 for trespass, with Quaye J.A. and Danquah J.A. concurring.
HONYENUGA J.A.
This is an appeal by the defendant/appellant against the judgment of the High Court, Accra dated the 20th day of December 2007. The said judgment dismissed the reliefs claimed by the defendant/appellant in her counterclaim.
The claim of the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter called the respondent) was as follows:-
“a. A declaration of title to a piece or parcel of land situate and lying and being at Dome Accra concession and bounded on the North-West by a proposed road measuring 70 feet more or less, on the North East by Vendor’s land measuring 160 feet more or less, on the South-East by Vendor’s land measuring 70 feet more or less and on the South-West by 160 feet more or less and covering an approximate area of 0.25 acre more or less which said piece of land is more particular delineated on the plan attached to the indenture and thereon shown edged pink.
b. Recovery of possession.
c. Damages for trespass.
d. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from further acts of trespass”.
The defendant/appellant (hereinafter called the appellant) on her part counterclaimed as follows:-
“2(i) Declaration of Title to all that piece or parcel of land situate being and lying at Dome and bounded on the North by the property of the vendor’s family (Reindorf family) measuring 75 feet more or less, on the South by the vendor’s property (Reindorf family) measuring 75 feet more or less, on the West by the vendor’s property (Reindorf family) measuring 150 feet more or less and on the East by the vendor’s property (Reinforf family) and measuring 150 feet more or less which property measures 0.28 acres.
(ii) General damages for trespass.
(iii) Recovery of possession.
(iv) Perpetual injunction
(v) Costs
(vi) The sum of ¢25,000,000.00 being the cost incurred by the defendant in constructing the foundation which was illegally destroyed by the plaintiff”.
In the statement of claim accompanying the writ of summons, the respondent averred that he acquired the land from his vendor Emmanuel Roger Amudzi of Accra in the year 2003. The respondent claimed that a search conducted at the Lands Commission Secretariat indicated that the land in dispute was leased to his vendor by the Reindorf family on the 24th day of August 1995. The respondent contended that an indenture evidencing the sale of the land to him was executed on the 9th June, 2004 after which he went into possession and then registered the land as No. AR/4483/2004. The respondent alleged that