TETTEH KUMODJI DOKU v. HENRY KOJO DJABA
July 28, 2009
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP MR. JUSTICE S. H. OCRAN
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
July 28, 2009
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
BY COURT:
The Plaintiff by his Writ issued on 29th September 2008 claimed the following.
1. An Order of possession of the disputed property.
2. An Order of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant from trespassing on the Plaintiff’s land.
3. Damages for trespass to land
4. Cost.
Even though on the face of the Writ it is issued in the name of the Plaintiff and on behalf of the Estate of one Akushia Doku (deceased), the body of the Statement of Claim and the endorsement on the Writ did not indicate so.
The Statement of Claim did not also state when the said Akoshia Doku died, neither was the date of death of Akoshia Doku mentioned in Plaintiff’s evidence. In paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff however pleaded that in 1959; the Plaintiff acquired the disputed property jointly with his sister Akoshia Komodji and leased the said property to one J.S.A Chedid for 20 years certain.
According to the Plaintiff’s pleading before the 20 years lease expired, Chedid assigned the lease to one Henry Kwadwo Djaba, but Henry Kwadwo Djaba now claims the property had been conveyed to him by Akoshia Doku forever. The pleading and the evidence did not indicate whether Akoshia Komodji is the same as Akoshia Doku.
On or about 21st day of October 2008, when an application for substituted service was applied for, the plaintiff’s Counsel said they believe the defendant was dead, but they were not sure, and as such wanted an Order of Substituted Service. The application was then adjourned to 12th November 2008 to find out whether the defendant was dead or not.
The docket was taken to the Motions Court and it came back to this Court on 27th February 2009 after the Order of Substituted Service had been granted by the Motions Court.
On 18th March 2009, the Plaintiff was granted Interlocutory Judgement, but since he wanted recovery of possession of land that his own pleading said the Defendant claimed to have had a conveyance from Akoshia Doku, the Plaintiff was asked to proof his title.
On 2nd July 2009 the Plaintiff gave evidence and tendered exhibit ‘A’ as the document covering their land. This was the lease document he gave to Jemiel. The Plaintiff also gave evidence that Jemiel was given 20 years lease from 18th July 1959, and it expired in 1979.
According to the Plaintiff, before 1979, Jemiel Called him and informed him that he had transferred the land to Henry Kojo Djaba, so if he liked he should go to Kojo Djaba to collect money. According
AI Generated Summary
This High Court judgment by Mr. Justice S. H. Ocran arises from a land dispute in which the Plaintiff sought possession, a permanent injunction, damages for trespass, and costs against Henry Kwadwo Djaba. The Plaintiff asserted he and his sister (identified inconsistently as Akoshia Komodji and Akoshia Doku) acquired the property and leased it in 1959 to J.S.A. Chedid (Jemiel) for 20 years; Chedid allegedly assigned his interest to Djaba. The Plaintiff last received rent in 1972 and claimed Djaba told him in 2008 that his sister had gifted the land to him. The court scrutinized Exhibit ‘A’, referencing a Deed of Gift No. 2122/1959 from Emmanuel Doku, and found anomalies and contradictions. Applying Section 10(1) of the Limitation Decree (NRCD 54) and the Supreme Court’s reasoning in GIHOC v. Hanna Assi concerning adverse possession, the court held the claim to recover land was time-barred and dismissed all reliefs.