Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
TORKORNOO JSC:-
Background
This case reflects the sad state of delays in justice delivery on the effort of citizens to invest in economy of Ghana. At the commencement of this suit in June 2008, the plaintiff/respondent/appellant (hereafter referred to as Plaintiff) lived in the United States of America. He sued through his wife, who acted as his attorney. His case is that in 2005, he purchased a part of house number 891/2 Kotobabi, also known as parcel number 215, which included shops. The purchase price of the property he bought was GHC 30,000.
Prior to negotiating to purchase the property, he conducted a search in the Land Title Registry and satisfied himself that the property from which parcel 215 was carved out of was registered in the name of the vendor Samuel Davidson. Following the purchase, he also registered his interest in the Land Title Registry.
His case is that he informed both the vendor and the tenants in the shop of his intention to bring down the existing structure in order to build a new one for commercial purposes. His lawyers also demanded for the vendor and tenants to pay rent to him as the owner of the property for the respective parts of the property that they were using. Both the vendor and the tenants failed or refused to accede to his requests for rents, leading to the commencement of the action in the high court for the following claims:
a.Declaration of title to the part of H/No 891/2, Kotobabi which was sold to the plaintiff by the late Samuel Davidson
b.Payment of all rent arrears and mesne profit due him
By the time the action started, the vendor of the property had died. Plaintiff averred that the vendor’s widow had started exercising acts of ownership over the said property. Thus the first defendant is his widow, and the 2nd to 14th defendants are the tenants.
The 1st to 14th defendants initially entered a common defence which was later rectified as the defence of only the 1st defendant, and amended. In her amended statement of defence, the 1st defendant averred that she was neither the customary successor nor the personal representative of Samuel Davidson and so Plaintiff had no cause of action against her. The 1st defendant admitted having witnessed a record of money collected by her deceased husband from somebody called Alfah. She said she did not know the plaintiff, and she did not read the content of the document that witnessed the receipt of money. She admitted having collected rents from the tenants after the