Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
PREAMBLE
DOTSE JSC:-
This interlocutory appeal raises issues which relate to the criteria or guidelines that an appellate court such as this Supreme Court must consider when an appeal lies against the refusal of the Court of Appeal in allowing a party to adduce fresh evidence as is provided for under Rule 26 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997, (C. I. 19) and expatiated further by the decision of this Court in Poku v Poku [2007-2008] SCGLR 996.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent hereafter referred to as the Plaintiff on the 7th day of July, 1998, commenced a suit in the Circuit Court, Tema as the Administrator of the Estate of Ogyadu Obuadabang Larbi (Deceased) against the Defendants/ Respondents/
Appellants, hereafter referred to as the Defendants, claiming the following reliefs:-
1. “A declaration that the said lease agreement between TDC and Ogyadu Obuadabang Larbi (Deceased) on plot numbers TDC 346/48/18 and 19 is subsisting and not terminated.
2. A declaration that by his death, the said lease property automatically became part of the deceased’s estate fully vested in the Plaintiff to deal with.
3. An order of injunction to restrain TDC to allocate the land to any other person or to enter same either by themselves, their servants, agents or anyone claiming through TDC, or any other person.” Emphasis
In an accompanying Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff averred that the deceased, and the Defendants entered into a lease agreement duly signed, sealed and delivered on the 11th day of March 1980 wherein the Defendants leased the demised plot numbers TDC 346/48/18 and 19 located at the heavy industrial area near Aluworks Tema, for a term of 60 years to the Plaintiff’s late husband.
Attempts by the Plaintiff to have the said lease transactions vested in the personal representatives of the Deceased, by the Defendants failed, whereupon she caused the said writ of summons to be instituted on her behalf against the Defendants.
The DefendantS on their part, entered appearance and filed a Defence in which they admitted the lease, but averred that the lease agreement between them and the deceased husband of the Plaintiff was terminated as far back as 1985 for non-payment of rent and non development of the plot as per their paragraph 5 of the defence.
DECISION BY THE CIRCUIT COURT
After trial, the learned Circuit Court Judge dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim in the following terms:-
“From the totality of evidence adduced by Plaintiff