LARBI vs. KUMA AND ANOTHER [1988]DLCA782

Date	1988-02-04
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLCA782

AMUA-SEKYI J.S.C

AMPIAH JA

ESSIEM J.A

APPELLANT IN PERSON.

NARTER-OLAGA FOR THE RESPONDENTS

[1988]DLCA782
																																						<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" >LARBI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>KUMA AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA.]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 1 GLR 414<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
4 FEBRUARY 1988<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">

APPELLANT IN PERSON. <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">

AMUA-SEKYI J.S.C., AMPIAH AND ESSIEM
JJ.A<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>Ampiah
J.A. delivered the judgment of the court with the leave of Amua-Sekyi J.S.C. In
his writ of summons, the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the
plaintiff) claimed ownership of a piece of land situate and lying at the Ring
Road near Nima Junction, damages for trespass and an order of perpetual
injunction against the defendant-respondent, also referred to in this appeal
simply as the defendant. A Madam Adelaide Valani Otwiwa Newman , the grantor of
the defendant, applied to be joined and was joined in the action as the
co-defendant. She counterclaimed for a declaration of title to that piece of
land, damages for trespass and an order of perpetual injunction against the
plaintiff, his agents, servants and assigns. On 13 February 1984 the trial
learned judge dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. He declared title in the
co-defendant and made an order restraining the plaintiff, his agents and
servants from entering the land in dispute or in any way interfering with it.
It is against this judgment that the plaintiff has appealed.<o:p></o:p>The main
issues which arose for determination after the close of pleadings were:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(a)
Whether the land in question forms part of the land given to the Akwapim Union
by the Nii Odoi Kwao family. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(b)
Whether the plaintiff has a valid grant.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There was
no dispute that the land the subject matter of the dispute formed part of land
belonging to the Nii Odoi Kwao family of Christiansborg and Accra. By an
agreement dated 9 May 1940 the Nii Odoi Kwao family leased a portion of this land
to the Akwapim Union (a friendly society) for a period of 99 years, for
residential purposes. This agreement was registered in the Lands Registry as
No. 515/1950 and tendered in these proceedings as exhibit D. By another
agreement dated 20 February 1945 the Nii Odoi Kwao family again purported to
replace the earlier grant to the union by the substitution of another land. The
lease was also registered as No. 1066/1945 at the Lands Registry. This was
tendered as exhibit E. This latter grant has been found not to be a replacement
but a supplement. By a lease registered at the Land Registry as No. 986/68, the
Akwapim Union demised a portion of its land to Philip Kwah Arthur Badoo and, on
27 March 1980, the said Philip Kwah Arthur Badoo assigned his interest in the
land to the plaintiff—see exhibit C. The union itself also gave to the
plaintiff another land—see exhibit B. These two pieces of land form the subject
matter of the plaintiff’s claim.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
co-defendant on the other hand claimed her title from the Nii Odoi Kwao family.
On 29 December 1954 the Nii Odoi Kwao family, through Nii Odotei Akufu, granted
a portion of the land already leased to the Akwapim Union to Moses Emmanuel
Kwaku Addo: see exhibit F. On 18 August 1978 the Nii Odoi Kwao family purported
to lease to the co-defendant yet another portion of the union’s leased land. It
would appear from the indenture of rectification dated 29 January 1980 (see
exhibit 2) that the Nii Odoi Kwao family realised the effectiveness of the
conveyance to the co-defendant on 18 August 1978. In paragraphs 1 and 2 of the
recitals, it stated:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“WHEREAS:
1. By the said deed of conveyance dated 18 August 1978 executed by the parties
hereto stamped as AC 9810/78 and registered in the Lands Registry as No.
6035/1978 as aforesaid hereinafter called the conveyance the land therein
described was for the consideration therein stated conveyed; 2. The recitals in
the said conveyance have not mentioned certain transactions which had affected
the said land though they have for practical purposes become effectual....”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
deed of rectification are transactions which the Nii Odoi family had dealt with
E.K. Addo. Thus, to rectify the situation, the land formerly assigned to E. K.
Addo was included in the grant made to the co-defendant. It became necessary
therefore</main>