THEOPHILUS ADJETEY v. PHILIP KWAME AGBAYOMEH & TEMA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
January 17, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- Alexander Osei Tutu J.
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
January 17, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Ghanaian land dispute involved the Tema Development Corporation (TDC), the Nungua Traditional Council (NTC), the Plaintiff (identified in the record as Theophilus Adjetey), and the first defendant, Philip Agboyome (later substituted by his son, Edward). TDC had released land at Communities 16 and 17 to the NTC to allocate to indigenes, and TDC would regularize such allocations. The Plaintiff received an allocation of Plot RP/16/C/68 at Community 16, applied for TDC regularization, and paid fees. Subsequently, NTC alleged fraud, cancelled the Plaintiff’s allocation, and reallocated the same plot to Philip, with TDC acting on NTC’s letter. The Court emphasized that valid customary grants divest the grantor’s rights and subsequent grants are barred by nemo dat. Nonetheless, the Plaintiff’s case collapsed on evidentiary and procedural grounds: a defective power of attorney without a competent, identified witness, an inconsistent witness statement signature, lack of the Plaintiff’s own testimony, and inconsistent or irrelevant documents. Applying Act 549 and Evidence Act principles, the Court found no admissible proof and dismissed all claims.
JUDGMENT
The facts of this case are that the Second Defendant is charged with the planning, management and development of land within the Tema Acquisition Area. In 1994, per a written agreement between the second Defendant and the Nungua Traditional Council (hereinafter called the NTC), the former released a parcel of land in Communities 16 & 17 to the latter for purposes of allocation to its indigenes. The latter thereafter became responsible for the allocation of the land released to them. The second Defendant in the said agreement assumed the responsibility of regularizing allocations made by the NTC. By so doing, it prepares formal leases for those who have been allocated lands by the NTC.
In May 2011, the Plaintiff was allocated Plot No. RP/16/C/68, Community 16 at Tema by the NTC. He applied to TDC for regularization, which was accepted and processed. However, TDC later received a letter from the NTC cancelling the Plaintiff’s allocation. The letter further informed the second Defendant of NTC’s re-allocation of the land to the first Defendant.
Following the displeasure of the Plaintiff over the treatment meted out to him, he commenced this legal suit on 11th August 2011. The reliefs he endorsed on his writ of summons were:
A Declaration that the offer, the subject matter land by TDC (Second Defendant) which was accepted by the Plaintiff was valid and proper.
An order that the Plaintiff is the equitable lessee having been granted a valid lease of the land.
Damages for breach of contract.
Both Defendants entered appearance and proceeded to file their respective defences. The Plaintiff filed a reply to the defence and after the close of pleadings, the following issues were adopted by the Court for trial:
Whether or not the Plaintiff validly acquired the subject-matter land from the Nungua Traditional Council and the grant was regularized by the second Defendant (TDC).
Whether or not the Nungua Traditional Council later revoked their grant to the Plaintiff?
Whether or not the allegation of fraud by Nungua Traditional Council as well as the second Defendant on the Plaintiff can be substantiated?
Whether or not the alleged revocation was properly communicated by the Nungua Traditional Council to the Plaintiff?
Whether the Plaintiff had at the time invested on the land?
Whether or not the Nungua Traditional Council can validly revoke the Plaintiff’s grant long after the Plaintiff has satisfied the conditions and gone ahead into possession of t