TAMAKLOE v. NUNOO
1960
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- OLLENNU, J
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
1960
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Plaintiff sought repossession of land at Link Road, Accra, against the defendant who claimed ownership through a purchase from Modua Abrahams. The court established that the plaintiff had the rightful title to the land, and ruled that the plaintiff was not guilty of laches, thereby granting judgment in favor of the plaintiff for possession of the land with costs.
JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.
By his writ of summons issued on the 29th of January, 1959, the plaintiff claimed against the defendant an order for recovery of possession of a piece of land situate at Link Road, Accra. He pleaded that he obtained a declaration of title to the land on the 10th day of December, 1957 in this court (3 W.A.L.R. 280); and further that the defendant has wrongfully entered upon this said land.
In a defence filed on behalf of the defendant, by her solicitor, it was pleaded that the defendant purchased the land in dispute from one Modua Abrahams an elder of the Sempe Stool, Accra in 1955; that she completed erection of a substantial house on the said land in March, 1957, without let or hindrance from any quarter; that it was not until the 21st February, 1958, that she received a letter from the plaintiff’s solicitor informing her that the plaintiff had obtained judgment against her vendor Modua Abrahams. Upon these facts it was pleaded formally by the defendant that:
“4. The defendant says that she had been led by the plaintiff’s acquiescence to believe that the land was hers, and had spent a considerable sum of money in constructing a building on the said land. She further says that the plaintiff had, or ought to have had full knowledge of the fact of her occupation of the land.
5. The defendant therefore contends that the plaintiff is estopped by conduct from laying claim to ownership or to possession of the said land."
Two issues arise upon those pleadings for determination:
(1) whether title to the land is vested in the plaintiff, and if it is,
(2) whether the plaintiff has been guilty of laches and is therefore estopped from recovering possession of the land which the defendant is occupying.
The onus is upon the plaintiff to establish his title to the land, and it is upon the defendant to establish that the plaintiff has been guilty of conduct amounting to fraud as to deprive him of his right to recover possession of the land.
On the issue of title the plaintiff relies upon the Sempe Stool as his root of title, while the defendant relies upon Modua Abrahams as her root of title. The plaintiff tendered in evidence a judgment of this court delivered in consolidated suits Allotey v. Abrahams; Tamakloe v. Abrahams (3 W.A.L.R. 280) in which he obtained declaration of his title against Modua Abrahams, the vendor of the defendant. The judgment was admitted and marked Exhibit "B". That judgment is not binding upon the defendant as a