SALOMEY SHORME TETTEH & ANOR v. MARY KORKOR HAYFORD & ORS

J U D G M E N T.

JONES DOTSE JSC;

This is an appeal by the Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant hereafter referred to as Plaintiff against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 22nd July 2010 which set aside a judgment of the High Court which was in favour of the plaintiff, and entered judgment in favour of the Defendants/Appellants/Respondents, hereafter referred to as the Defendants. It must be noted that, even though the Plaintiff commenced action against a Defendant, Madam Mary Korkoi, she died during the pendency of the suit, and had been substituted by her daughters, the two substituted Defendants herein.

This case commenced in the High Court, Accra where the Plaintiff issued a writ against the Defendant, Madam Mary Korkoi (deceased) claiming the following reliefs:

i. Declaration that the Land Title Certificate No. GA3929 issued by the Chief Registrar, land Title Registry, Accra to the Defendant is null and void on grounds of fraud.

ii. An order to cancel or set aside the said Land Certificate No. CA. 3929

iii. Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, her agents workmen etc not to have anything to do with the said land.

At the High Court the Acting Asere Mantse at all material times to the cause of the action, Nii Tafo Amon II applied to be joined as a party and was accordingly joined as a Co-plaintiff by an order of the Court.

Interestingly, both Plaintiff and Defendants claim title through the Asere Stool. Whilst plaintiff claims she acquired the land in 1978, Defendants claimed their mother acquired the land as far back as 1974, though she only got an indenture covering the land in 1983. It is therefore not surprising that the Defendants also counterclaimed for the following reliefs:-

a. A declaration that the indenture issued to the Plaintiff in respect of the disputed land after an indenture was earlier executed in her favour in 1983 is null and void.

b. A declaration that the Asere stool indeed executed a Deed of Lease on 27/7/1983 in favour of the Defendant and same was registered at Land Registry and covered with Land Certificate No. GA3929.

JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT

The learned High Court Judge found for the Plaintiff on the basis that the Plaintiff’s land tallied with the size of land stated in her indenture and the Title Certificate in contra distinction to the Defendant’s who, according to the learned trial High Court Judge, showed inconsistencies in their land size because the size of their land as reflected in their in