SAMUEL ANKRA v. WILLIAM APIETU AMPOFO
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- SENYO DZAMEFE JA (PRESIDING)
- MERLEY WOOD JA
- RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG JA
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
- Equity and Trusts
- Contract Law
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Ghana Court of Appeal, per Adjei‑Frimpong JA with Dzamefe JA (Presiding) and Wood JA concurring, reversed the trial court’s judgment in a property dispute between long‑time friends over House No. C140/20, Abelemkpe, Accra. The respondent, resident in the United States, had appointed the appellant as caretaker. The appellant constructed a two‑storey building on the land, claiming a licence granted by the respondent. The trial judge rejected the licence claim, demanded documentary evidence, and granted recovery of possession. On appeal, the court held that under Section 3(1)(g) of the Conveyancing Act, licences need not be in writing and, consistent with the Land Act, Land Title Registration Act, and Thomas v Sorrell, licences create no proprietary interest. Considering the parties’ conduct—including accommodations in 2008, 2010, and 2012 and the absence of objections—the court found an oral licence and estoppel against the respondent. It also faulted the trial judge’s use of judicial notice on construction costs and recalculated debt refunds from Exhibit D series, awarding the appellant USD 52,808.36 plus statutory interest, while rejecting the Sam Adofo claim.
RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG JA:
The facts of this case are not unusual. The protagonists of the dispute were two great friends who, for reasons not too relevant to explore for now, fell out in the course of time.
The respondent, at all times material to the suit, resided in the United States but owned House No. C140 /20, Abelemkpe, Accra. He had succeeded to this property as the only child and sole beneficiary of the estate of his mother, Christiana Naah-Amerley Tay.
Not living in Ghana though occasionally visiting home, the respondent appointed his friend the appellant as caretaker of the property. Among other tasks, the appellant was to receive rents from tenants occupying certain parts of the property and account for the proceeds to the respondent.
Whilst it was contended at the trial that the appellant failed to render proper account of his stewardship, little turns on the point in this appeal. Indeed, the respondent had found it necessary in the course of the trial, to discontinue the action against some of the tenants whom he had sued jointly and severally with the appellant over payment of rent.
Now, in the course of his caretakership, the appellant put up a two-storey building on a portion of the property. This building was to become the main bone of contention between the parties.
According to the respondent, the appellant erected the said building without his consent and rented same to tenants (whom he sued as 2nd and 3rd defendants) without reference to him. He claimed the appellant had enjoyed the proceeds of the rent and also failed to yield vacant possession to him. From all indications, the appellant was bent on remaining in control of the land and collecting rents from tenants occupying the storey-building to his total exclusion. He thus commenced the instant suit seeking the following reliefs at the trial court:
a. An order for recovery of possession of the two-storey building situate on a portion of the property known as House No. C. 140/20. Abelemkpe, Accra.
b. Mesne profit.
c. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, servants, agents, privies whomsoever from remaining on or entering the property.
Per contra, the appellant pleaded that he put up the two-storey building upon a licence granted to him by the respondent himself. According to his account, whilst taking care of the Abelemkpe property, the respondent who decided to construct another property in Kibi engaged him to supervise the construction of