CONCA ENGINEERING (GHANA) LTD. vs. MOSES [1985]DLCA901

Date	1985-07-15
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1985]DLCA901

APALOO C.J.

MENSA BOISON JA

ABBAN J.A.

NANA AKUFO-ADDO (WITH HIM J. TETE-DONKOR (MISS)) FOR THE APPELLANT.

AKO ADJEI FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1985]DLCA901
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CONCA ENGINEERING (GHANA)
LTD.<o:p></o:p>

{COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 2 GLR 319<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
15 JULY 1985<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

NANA AKUFO-ADDO (WITH HIM J. TETE-DONKOR (MISS))
FOR THE APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

AKO ADJEI FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

APALOO C.J., MENSA BOISON AND ABBAN JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.<o:p></o:p>In the
north-east of Accra lies a suburban building land. It is called Mamobi. The
title to that land is vested in the Osu stool. It is the occupant of that stool
acting with the consent and concurrence of the stool elders that can make a
valid alienation of any portion of that land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 17
March 1960 that stool by a deed, conveyed a portion of the land approximately
85 feet by 90 feet to a man named Abudulai Kotokoli in consideration of the
payment by him of the sum of twelve guineas. To the deed was attached a site
plan which more or less identified the land. By a law passed in 1962, the grant
could not be accorded legal effect until it was registered. It is the Land
Registry Act, 1962 (Act 122). In apparent compliance with section 24 of that
legislation, Kotokoli registered the deed in 1968. The estate sought to be
conveyed to him was described in the recital as “an absolute grant and
conveyance” but by the words of the habendum, he was “To have and to hold the
said land and hereditaments hereby granted or expressed to be and every part
thereof unto and to the use of the grantee his heirs, successors and assigns
forever.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There
then followed the usual covenant for title and one for quiet enjoyment. There
is no reservation of any sort to the Osu stool and there can be little doubt
that the interest conveyed was absolute title. The stool divested itself of its
ownership in favour of Kotokoli. One of the normal incidents of ownership, is
the right of alienation. Kotokoli for his part, exercised that right. By a deed
dated 10 March 1976, he conveyed the identical plot of land to one Hamidu for a
like estate in consideration of the sum of ¢500. It was a conveyance on sale
and Hamidu was therein described as a purchaser. He also complied with Act 122
and registered his title deed in the same year, that is 1976. On 5 August 1981,
the said Hamidu as vendor, conveyed the self-same plot to the second appellant
in consideration of the sum of ¢6,000. It was also an absolute sale and
conveyance of the self-same title he had himself obtained from his vendor,
Kotokoli. The second appellant, as his predecessors before him, also duly
registered that deed in the Deeds Registry.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
evidence shows that before the second appellant bought the land from Hamidu, it
was vacant and unoccupied. So the second appellant was parking cars belonging
to the first appellant company there. Hamidu challenged his right to do so, and
laid claim to the land. Shortly afterwards, he offered to sell the plot to the
second appellant. After conducting a search in the Deeds Registry and
apparently feeling satisfied that Hamidu had a good title to the plot, the
second appellant agreed to buy and proceeded to purchase the land from Hamidu.
The evidence of the second appellant shows that there was no structure of any
sort on the land when he purchased it. But after acquiring title, he deposited
gravels on it.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
exercise of this act of ownership was noticed by the respondent, and it is this
that provoked this litigation. On 5 June 1984 the respondent (hereafter called
the plaintiff) issued out of the circuit court, a writ in which he sought
against both appellants (hereafter called the defendants) “declaration of title
to the ownership and possession” of a land he then described and damages for
trespass. As clearly the plaintiff was not in possession of the land at the
time, but conceived himself as having a better right to possession than the
second defendant, he also sought “an order for recovery of possession and a perpetual
injunction . . .” The plaintiff bases his title on a customary grant made to
him by a man named Adokwei Saka. This grant was made on 20 January 1955, and
was evidenced in writing (exhibit A). It reads:<o:p></o:p>