2015
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In a dispute over land ownership, the Supreme Court affirmed lower court decisions favoring the Plaintiffs/Respondents, concluding that their predecessors' title to the land was validly acquired in 1946 and that the Defendants/Appellants' registered title was obtained through fraudulent means by not disclosing ongoing litigation. The court emphasized principles barring judgment against prior purchasers and requiring full disclosure of pending legal matters for valid land registration.
BENIN, JSC:-
The Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents, hereinafter called the Respondents,
brought an action at the High Court against the 1st and 2nd
Defendants/Appellants/Appellants, hereinafter called the 1st and 2nd Appellants
respectively. In the course of proceedings the Co-defendant/Appellant/Appellant,
hereinafter called the 3rd Appellant was joined to the suit upon application.
The Respondents’ case was that in the year 1946 the disputed land which forms
part of a larger piece of land described in the schedule annexed to the statement
of claim was gifted to them by one Mrs. Naa Oyo Ofosu Quartey who had
obtained same from Mrs. Freda Hansen Sackey, whose own deed of conveyance
had been registered as 1060/40. It turned out that the said Mrs. Freda Hansen
inherited the land through the husband’s estate. The said husband obtained it by
purchase in 1926 from Ayibonte and Tetteh Quaye who were said to be the
Gbese Manche and Korle Wulomo respectively. The said Gbese Manche and Korle
Wulomo belonged to the wider Onamrokor family of which the Appellants’
grantors, the Onamrokor-Adain family is also a part. And according to Counsel for
the Appellants the Onamrokor-Adain family obtained the entire land described as
Dome land of which Achimota land is an integral part by customary gift from the
same Gbese Manche and Korle Wulomo in the 1860’s. The Respondents’ case was
that in the same year 1946 that the land was gifted to them they registered it at
the Deeds Registry as number 274/46. They moved into occupation and exercised
various acts of ownership thereon without let or hindrance. Among the acts of
possession, the Respondents pleaded that they wire fenced all around the land
and erected a chapel on a portion of the land. The Respondents averred they
started experiencing encroachment to portions of their land a few years back and
they took action against the trespassers with success. The Appellants were also
said to have encroached on a part of the land, hence the claim before the High
Court for damages for trespass and perpetual injunction.
The Appellants’ case was that they initially obtained the land from one Hansen
Sackey on rental basis. Whilst in occupation one Paul Ayitey Tetteh approached
the 2nd appellant who is also the alter ego of the 1st Appellant and introduced
himself as the head of the Onamrokor-Adain family, the true and rightful owner
of the land. The 2ndAppellant was shown land documents as well as a Suprem