SESIEME JONATHAN v. WOGON GBOMITTA
2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI, J
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Alternative dispute resolution
2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the High Court, Ho (Court 1), Justice George Buadi adjudicated a suit by Sesieme Jonathan seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that Defendant Wogon Gbormita sold him AVEKOR LAND and a declaration that a prior default judgment in Suit No. E12/28/2021 was fraudulently obtained. Jonathan claimed a 1978 sale evidenced by an indenture, later updated with GPS and re-endorsed by Defendant. Gbormita denied any sale or execution, asserting the documents were only given to Jonathans late mother for verification. Applying Brutuw v Aferiba and Jonesco v Beard, the court confined trial to whether the earlier judgment was tainted by fraud. Cross-examination revealed Gbormita had admitted before Anlo chiefs that the indenture bore his signature. The court held Gbormita misrepresented facts to obtain the default judgment compelling release of the indenture, found the proceedings founded on fraud per Mcfoy v UAC, and set aside both the default judgment and related contempt orders, directing immediate return of the indenture to Jonathan.
JUDGMENT
1 Plaintiff’s case
Just over a year ago, that is, on 4 October 2021, Plaintiff commenced this action by
writ of summons against Defendant for the following reliefs:
i A declaration that Defendant has sold the land in dispute to Plaintiff
herein.
ii A declaration that the judgment obtained in Suit No. E12/28/2021
was fraudulently obtained.
iii An order setting aside the said fraudulent judgment.
iv Punitive cost.
Plaintiff’s case is that he entered into a land purchase contract with Defendant over
the subject matter land for which reason an indenture was executed between him
and Defendant on 6April 1978 to signify the sale of the land. According to him, he
updated the old site plan with GPS technology which necessitated a new indenture
to be prepared, which Defendant, once again endorsed with other witnesses.
Plaintiff says that Defendant sued him to compel him to release the indenture with
the contention that the indenture got into his mother's custody just to verify the
documents and to assist her to decide to purchase parts of the land. Claiming to
be sick at the time of the suit, Plaintiff avers that he could not file a defence to the
suit resulting in Defendant securing a default judgment against him. According to
Plaintiff, the default judgment that Defendant obtained against him is fraudulent.
Plaintiff cites the particulars of fraud as “[m]isrepresenting to the Court that [the]
title documents executed pursuant to a valid land purchase was merely given to
Plaintiff's mother for verification purpose”, for which cause the indenture was
upon orders of the Court under the default judgment released to Defendant.
Plaintiff states that Defendant is riding on the said fraudulent judgment to destroy
Plaintiff’s boundary pillars and to retake possession of the land that he had
divested his interest since 1978, averring that Defendant would not stop his
unlawful activities on his land unless the Court orders him.
2 Defendant’s case
Defendant entered appearance not only to deny Plaintiff’s claims but also to make
a counterclaim for the following reliefs:
1 A declaration of title to the subject matter land commonly known
and called AVEKOR LAND which covers an approximate area of
5.06 acres more or less and bounded as follows:
On North West by the property of MATHIAS P. FORMADJA
On North East by the property of the VENDOR
On South East by TIMOTHY Y. AVEGE
On the South West by the VENDOR
2 Recovery of possession.