SAMUEL K. OTU BOATENG v. KOFI NTIM-MANU & KING LEE LIMITED

ANTHONY OPPONG JA:

Plaintiff/appellant sued defendants/respondents for a declaration of title to land at McCarthy Hill, Accra, recovery of possession, special and general damages and perpetual injunction. The defendants/respondents not only denied plaintiff’s claim but counterclaimed. After the hearing or the trial of the case the High Court dismissed plaintiff/appellant’s claims and entered judgment in favour of defendants/respondents for the reliefs contained in their counterclaim.

For convenience, the court would adopt the descriptions the parties bore at the trial court.

The plaintiff who was dissatisfied with the judgment dismissing his claim and entering judgment for the defendants for the reliefs contained in their counterclaim, lodged an appeal and prayed that the judgment of the High Court, Land Division, Accra dated 18th April 2019 be set aside and in its place judgment be entered for plaintiff for the reliefs endorsed on his Writ of Summons.

For better appreciation of this delivery, perhaps it may be necessary to attempt a brief account of the background facts of this case.

Plaintiff acquired a piece of land which is approximately 0.37 acres situate at McCarthy Hills, Accra in 1983 from Nii Kweikuma III who acted as the head and lawful representative of Nii Amoo Quaye and Nii Kweikuma of Anumansa James Town, Accra. In 1985, however, a document conveying the land to him by the said donor was executed in favour of plaintiff. The document was stamped and registered under both the Land Registry Act, 1962, Act 122 and the Land Title Registration Law, 1986, PNDL 152. He also alluded to certain overt acts of possession and ownership of the land.

1st defendant, who is originally the only defendant plaintiff initiated the instant action against, also claimed to have acquired his land and registered same in the name of King Lee Limited for which reason King Lee Limited was subsequently joined to the suit as 2nd defendant. 1st defendant alleged to have acquired the land in 1992 from one Kyei Mensah Appenteng who also acquired the land from the same grantor as plaintiff in 1972.

Defendants contended that the land they acquired is different from the one plaintiff acquired. Defendants contended further that their grantor having acquired the land from the same grantor as plaintiff, the principle of Nemo Dat Quod non Habet operated against the family from purporting to grant the same land if the land were to be the same land granted to plaintiff.

2nd de