AMEFINU vs. ODAMETEY AND OTHER [1977]DLCA1229

Date	1977-07-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1977]DLCA1229

SOWAH JA

KINGSLEY-NYINAH JA

ANNAN J.A.

S. A. TSEGAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

J. C. ARMAH FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1977]DLCA1229
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >AMEFINU <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ODAMETEY AND OTHER <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>[1977] 2 GLR 135<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
27 JULY 1973<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

S. A. TSEGAH FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

J. C. ARMAH FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

SOWAH, KINGSLEY-NYINAH AND ANNAN JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANNAN J.A.<o:p></o:p>Annan
J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. The plaintiff-appellant sued the
defendants-respondents for (a) a declaration of title to all that piece or
parcel of land situate lying and being at North West Korle Gonno, Accra, and
bounded on the north by the proposed road; on the south by the vendor’s land,
on the east by the vendor’s land and on the west by the vendor’s land; (b)
N¢400.00 being damages for trespass and (c) recovery of possession.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) founded his
action on the following main particulars as set out in the statement of claim.
Firstly, the plaintiff alleged that she purchased the land from one W. T.
Allotey who conveyed it to her on 5 May 1967, whereupon she went into
possession and put up temporary structures on it. W. T. Allotey later
trespassed on the land on 11 May 1968 and in subsequent proceedings against W.
T. Allotey the plaintiff won judgment for a declaration of title on 12 August
1968. The plaintiff maintained that the first defendant-respondent (hereinafter
referred to as the defendant) knew about the said litigation but failed to join
the suit. The defendant subsequently took possession of the plaintiff ‘s
structures on the land claiming that the land had been sold to him by Allotey.
He rented some out to the other defendants-respondents and in spite of repeated
warnings refused to leave.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff therefore maintained that W. T. Allotey having divested himself of
his title in her favour in 1967 had no title to convey subsequently to the
defendant. She further maintained that the judgment in her favour against
Allotey in 1968 operates to estop the defendant from relitigating the issue of
title since he derives his title from Allotey and is therefore his privy in
estate. The plaintiff maintained in addition that in any case the defendant,
knowing of this litigation in 1968 about the land in dispute, did nothing to
protect his interest and is therefore estopped from laying claim to it.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant’s case on the pleadings proceeded upon a sale by Allotey to him and
he pleaded a deed of conveyance dated 25 March 1968. Before the conveyance was
executed, the defendant ascertained in a search in the Land Registry that
Allotey was the owner of the land and no other transaction was disclosed by the
search. The defendant therefore contended that whatever transaction was entered
into between the plaintiff and Allotey prior to his conveyance the same was not
registered.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>With
regard to the existence of the temporary structures of the plaintiff on the
land the defendant relied on a suit entitled W. T. Allotey v. Molley and Others
(suit No. L.304/1964) in which Allotey, as plaintiff, was declared owner of the
land in dispute whereupon he took out a writ of possession which was duly
executed against the plaintiff in the present action.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
pleadings, as indeed upon the evidence, there is no dispute as to the identity
of the land in dispute and the same land is being claimed by both the plaintiff
and the defendant, both parties basing their claims on a conveyance by the same
grantor, W. T. Allotey. It is therefore conceded that Allotey had title and
there is no dispute as to his title. Again both parties produced their deeds of
conveyance in evidence and each deed purports to have been executed by W. T.
Allotey in respect of the same piece of land.<o:p></o:p>