ROWLAND KOFI DWAMENA v. RICHARD NARTEY OTOO & ORS
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING)
- GBADEGBE JSC
- APPAU JSC
- PWAMANG JSC
- DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The dispute over land ownership in Osu brought by the plaintiff against the 1st defendant culminated in the Supreme Court taking judicial notice of an earlier judgment which established that all properties of the deceased, Edward Kabu Otoo, were devised through his will. The 1st defendant, claiming as customary successor, had no valid interest in the land. The Supreme Court, finding the proceedings in the High Court and Court of Appeal fundamentally flawed due to the 1st defendant's lack of capacity, struck out the suit and nullified prior judgments.
JUDGEMENT
PWAMANG, JSC:-
My Lords, before us is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 1st June, 2017 which, by majority decision, dismissed the appeal of the 1st defendant/appellant/appellant, who shall be referred to as the 1st defendant.
The antecedents of this appeal are as follows. On 13th June, 2012, the plaintiff/respondent/respondent, to be referred to as the plaintiff, sued Edward Kabu Otoo and two others in the High Court for declaration of title to land at Osu on which he built a house but could not register title documents given to him by the Osu Stool on account of prior registration by the said Edward Kabu Otoo. The 1st defendant herein, who initially was the 2nd defendant, was added to the suit because he also applied to register the land in his name at the Land Title Registry. In addition to the relief of declaration of title, the plaintiff endorsed his writ of summons with a prayer for the Lands Commission to be ordered to delete the records of the defendants and process his document. Accordingly, he made Lands Commission a nominal party as the 3rd defendant. In his defence filed on 17th October, 2012, the 1st defendant pleaded that the property in dispute belonged to Edward Kabu Otoo who acquired it from the Osu Stool before his death in 1944. The 1st defendant claimed that he was the late Edward Kabu Otoo’s customary successor so he counterclaimed for recovery of possession, general damages and perpetual injunction. In a reply the plaintiff pleaded that the 1st defendant, by not challenging him when he was developing the land, was estopped by the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence from claiming it. The Lands Commission filed a statement of defence and stated that they had no interest in the land and would abide by the decision of the court. As Edward Kabu Otoo had died long ago, his name was struck out and the case proceeded with only the present 1st defendant. The Lands Commission did not participate in the trial.
After a full trial, the High Court gave judgment on 14th April, 2015 against the 1st defendant but did not grant plaintiff his reliefs prayed for. In effect, plaintiff was only left in possession of the land. In the court’s opinion, while the plaintiff did not prove valid title to the land, the defendant was indeed guilty of acquiescence. The 1st defendant appealed against the judgment to the Court of Appeal and plaintiff also cross-appealed. As stated above, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal