Thoedocia Ofosu v. Tema Development Corp. & Kwadwo Perprah

SOWAH, J.A:

This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Tema dated

11th June 2007.

The facts of the case as averred by the plaintiff/respondent in her statement of claim were that she had applied to the 1st defendant for a house, had been allocated House No. J49 Community 11, had paid for the house in 1978 and had been given the keys to the house upon completion. She moved in but her children were forcibly driven out of the property by members of the Workers Defence Committee in 1983 and the 2nd defendant moved in. That

all her efforts to obtain vacant possession had failed hence on 25th February 1993 she issued a writ of summons claiming against the defendants for:

i. Recovery of property No. J.49 Community 11, Tema or in the alternative recovery of the value of the said property as at today’s open market value of the property as at the date of judgment.

ii. General damages for loss of use and unlawful occupation of property No. J.49 Community 11, Tema.

iii. Substantial loss.

In its statement of defence, the 1st defendant Tema Development Corporation [TDC] admitted that the plaintiff had paid for House No. C11 J49 and had been given the keys to the house and vacant possession therefore the Corporation had discharged its obligation towards her. The 1st defendant further averred that after giving vacant possession to the plaintiff, it had received directives from the Ministry of Works and Housing to offer the house to A. K. Peprah and on that basis the 2nd defendant’s tenancy was regularized. According to the 1st defendant, it had no knowledge of what transpired at the Ministry or the reason for the directive so those subsequent issues should be sorted out between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant.

On his part, the 2nd defendant in his amended statement of defence filed on 23rd January 2006 [which was wrongly titled “Reply to Amended statement of claim”], averred that the house was offered to him by the National Defence Committee, and at the time

he moved into the house in October 1983 it was not occupied. He asserted that he was legally allocated the house under the PNDC Laws at the time. Subsequently in 1988, the 1st defendant allocated the house to him upon a directive of the Ministry of Works and Housing and later still offered the house to him for outright purchase. He accepted the offer and is now the absolute owner of the property. He counterclaimed for:

1. Declaration that having offered House No. J49 C11, Tema to

2nd d