Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
J U D G M E N T
Claim:
In their claim filed on the 23rd day of September, 2021 after the matter had been
transferred from the Kade District Court under the instructions of the Supervising
High Court Judge, the plaintiff is sought the following reliefs from the defendants:
a) A declaration that the memorandum of understanding between the late Madam
Adwoa Obo and the plaintiff is valid and genuine and should be binding on
the defendants.
b) Recovery of Possession of House NO: B 126, Kade to enable the plaintiff’s
company to restructure same in accordance with the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) signed on the 15th day of May, 2013.
SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE:
It is the plaintiff’s case that on the 15th day of May, 2013. WATINA COMPANY
LTD entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Exhibit ‘A’ with the
late Madam Adwoa Obo to build a storey building of stores in front of the house of
Madam Adwoa Obo and occupy same for a period of 50 years ie from 1st January,
2014 to 31st December, 2065, after which the property shall be handed over to the
land lady who shall be the absolute owner without any adverse claims from the
plaintiff.
That after executing the M.O.U, the landlady allowed the plaintiff to pay ground rent
for 2 years until the death of the landlady Madam Adwoa Obo. That the plaintiff
company was not able to execute the project per their M.O.U because there were
kiosks on the land with occupants therein. That it was the land lady Madam Adwoa
Obo who rented out the land to the occupants of the kiosks before their
M,O.U, and so waited for her to eject the occupants before they begin, which
she could not do before her demise. That they attempted to eject the
tenants/occupants of the kiosks so that they could execute the project, but while at
that they realized that the family of Madam Adwoa Obo(defendants herein) had
given the land to the 4th defendant to develop in disregard to the Memorandum of
Understanding, to which they were witnesses.
The plaintiff therefore prayed the Court for the reliefs endorsed on their writ of
summons. The plaintiff called one witness to support their claim, and tendered in
documents, Exhibit ‘A’ and Exhibit ‘B’ series to support their case.
SUMMARY OF DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE:
The 1st defendant died after filing his witness statement and therefore same could
not be adopted as his evidence.
a) EVIDENCE OF 2ND DEFENDANT, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF,
1ST DEFENDANT AND 3RD LDEFENDANT.