GIHOC REFRIGERATION & HOUSEHOLD vs. JEAN HANNA ASSI

The dispute concerns Plot No. 19, Ring Road Industrial Area, Kaneshie, Accra. The Respondent, Jean Hanna Assi, claimed ownership of the plot and held a Land Title Certificate. The plot was used by General Cold Industry Ltd., a company in which the Respondent was the principal shareholder. The company was confiscated by the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) in 1979, but the land and buildings were not confiscated. The Ghana Industrial Holding Corporation (GIHOC) took over the enterprise and premises. After constitutional rule was restored, the business was returned to the Respondent but was later re-confiscated by the PNDC in 1982. GIHOC resumed management and renamed the company GIHOC Refrigeration and Household Products Ltd. The Respondent sought return of the property, but the Plaintiff (GIHOC Refrigeration) claimed adverse possession over the plot. The trial court found the Plaintiff was a licensee of the Government and dismissed the claim of adverse possession, declaring the Respondent's title indefeasible and ordering recovery of possession. The Court of Appeal confirmed dismissal of the Plaintiff's action but set aside the orders for possession and title declaration due to lack of counterclaim by the Respondent. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court.

AKUFFO (MS), J.S.C. I have been fortunate to have had previous sight of the opinion about to be read by my learned brother Dr. Date-Bah, JSC and I am in agreement with his conclusion that the substantive appeal must be dismissed. I fully support his reasons leading to this conclusion. Unfortunately, however, I cannot agree with his conclusion regarding the Respondent’s cross-appeal. Rather, for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion on the matter, I join my esteemed brother Prof. Ocran JSC in the view that the cross appeal should succeed. I, however, wish to express myself further on this aspect of the matter before us. Throughout the trial of this matter, the Respondent’s original ownership of the property was never in any serious question, and, therefore, once the trial judge found that the Appellant had never acquired any adverse title to the same, it necessarily followed that the Respondent remained the owner thereof, since his title had never been affected by the gove...