[2020]DLCA9371March 26, 2020Court of Appeal

ALEX KWABENA SARPONG vs. KOANS BUILDINGS SOLUTIONS

The plaintiff/appellant had obtained final judgment in the High Court, Land Court, in an action for declaration of title, recovery of possession, perpetual injunction, damages for trespass and costs after the defendant/respondent failed to participate in the trial. Following judgment on 16 June 2016, the High Court granted leave on 31 October 2016 for the issue of a writ of possession, which was issued on 24 November 2016. The writ was not executed within twelve months. The plaintiff first obtained an order on 12 January 2018 purporting to renew the writ/order, but that renewal was later vacated on 22 May 2018 on the ground that it contravened Order 44 rule 9(1) and (2) of C.I. 47. The plaintiff then applied for extension of time to validate the expired writ of possession, but the High Court refused the application on 20 July 2018, treating it as one for a fresh writ under Order 44 rule 3(2). The appeal challenged that refusal. Portion of judgment: “On the 20th of July 2018, the Land Court of the High court refused to grant an application… praying for an order for extension of time to validate the expired Writ of Possession… It is the plaintiff’s case that they sued defendant… for… Declaration of title… Recovery of Possession… On the 16th of June 2016, the high court… entered final judgment against the defendant… the court made an order for the issuance of Writ of Possession on 31st October 2016, and the Writ was issued on 24th November 2016… the order for Writ of Possession expired on 1st November 2017 without same having been executed… Plaintiff sought an extension of time to renew the Writ of Possession… But same was refused by the court, hence the instant appeal.”

read more

SOPHIA R. BERNASKO ESSAH (MRS) JA: On the 20th of July 2018, the Land Court of the High court refused to grant an application at the instance of the Plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff) praying for an order for extension of time to validate the expired Writ of Possession. It is this refusal which has caused the appellants to launch the present appeal on the following grounds: a. That the learned judge misdirected himself by misconstruing Appellant’s motion for extension of time to renew his expired Writ of Possession as a Motion for leave for the issue of a fresh Writ of Possession. Particulars of Misdirection 1. Relying on Order 44 Rule 3 (2) of CI 47 the learned judge dismissed Appellant’s motion by holding that the proper procedure to adopt in the event of Writ of Possession having expired is to apply for a fresh Writ of Possession and not to have the same renewed. 2. Further grounds may be filed with leave of the court on receipt of the ruling by t...