By Joyce Danso
Accra, July 29, GNA – The Court of Appeal (CA) has confirmed Alpha Beta Education Centre’s Limited has a valid title to some parcels of the land located at Dansoman-Akokoforto area in Accra.
“I equally hold that the registration of the land by the plaintiff and the subsequent issuance of the land title certificate by the Lands Commission to the Plaintiff (Alpha Beta Edu Centre Limited) was valid.
“I equally decree to the title to the land in suit Number LD/079/2016, Alpha Beta Education Centres Limited versus Nana Osei Bonsu and others is decreed in the Plaintiff (Alpha Beta Edu Centre).”
The CA also “ordered recovery of possession in favour of plaintiff, of all those pieces or parcels of land in both suits which the defendants have trespassed unto.”
It further granted perpetual injunction in favour of both suits against the defendants, their successors-in-tile, privies, agents, workmen among others from dealing with the land and doing anything inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment of the land.
Additionally, the CA awarded costs of GHC100, 000 to the Plaintiff (Alpha Beta) and GHC40, 000 general damages against each defendant in both suits.
The order was made by the court comprising: Henry Kwofie JSC. (Presiding), P.Bright Mensah J. A. and Mrs. Janapare Bartels- Kodwo(Mrs) J.A.
The Plaintiff proceeded to the Court of Appeal to appeal against the judgement of the High Court delivered on March 5, 2021, in consolidated suits namely Reverend Mama Mercy and 10 others and Nana Osei Bonsu and nine others.
Plaintiff who was dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court filed an appeal on the following grounds.
Plaintiff held that the trial judge, after affirming that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of the title to the disputed land, erred in not granting the relief of possession.
Again, the trial judge erred by holding that the defendants were in possession of the land.
Also, the trial judge erred when he dispensed with the composite plan, which had been drawn to aid the court in arriving at a just judgement.
Furthermore, the plaintiff held that the trial judge also erred in holding that the “Yao Duade Case” in which judgement was given in 1963 granted possession of Akokoforto lands to the Sempe Stool.
Plaintiff contended that the judgement of the lower court was against the weight of evidence.
The defendants also appealed against the judgement of the High Court saying the trial judge among others also erred when he held that a 1963 judgement covered the disputed land and yet stated that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of title to the disputed land.
They contended further the trial judge erred by holding that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of title to the disputed land.
The CA therefore consolidated the two suits and delivered its judgement.
The CA set out to ascertain among others whether or not, the defendants were trespassers and whether or not the land in dispute was acquired by fraud by the plaintiff and whether or not the plaintiff was entitled among its claims.
The CA in its judgement held that evidence led on record indicated that the “Sempe Stool was not entitled to possession and was, therefore, never granted any possessory rights over the disputed land.”
It further held that the judgement of Acolatse J, “never granted possession of Akokoforto land to the Sempe Stool.”
It therefore dismissed defendants second, third grounds of appeal for lack of merit.
On trespassing, the first to fifth defendants admitted in their statement of defence that they had started constructing buildings on the disputed land as at the time the plaintiff instituted the present suit.
According to the CA, the averments of the defendants buttress the claims that they had trespassed the land and noted that the defendants wholly failed to prove fraud against the plaintiff.
“From the available evidence, the plaintiff took the grant of the land, the subject matter from the rightful owners of the land, Nii Adam Kwartei Quartey Family of Gbawe.”
The court noted that there was overwhelming evidence on record to show that the defendants went unto the disputed land and called it a bluff of the plaintiff when it was demanded that the defendants remove themselves from the land.
“Indeed, in their respective statement of defence, they admitted boldly pleading that they would continue to develop or construct their houses thereon regardless of the pending suit.
I dismiss the grounds of appeal the defendants filed,” the court said.
GNA