Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
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