AMARTEI vs. STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [1990]DLHC1960

Date	1990-11-16
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1990]DLHC1960

LUTTERODT J.

HACKMAN FOR JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

FUI TSIKATA FOR THE FIRST DEFENDANTS.

[1990]DLHC1960
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">AMARTEI<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1992] 2 GLR 86<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 16
NOVEMBER 1990<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>HACKMAN FOR JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

FUI TSIKATA FOR THE FIRST DEFENDANTS. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF LUTTERODT J.<o:p></o:p>Haatso is a village lying along the Accra-Kwabenya Atomic Energy
motor road. The first defendant corporation is a statutory body established
under the laws of Ghana. By an executive instrument entitled “Site for the
State Insurance Corporation Instrument, 1979 (E.I. 58)” the Government of Ghana
acting through the Lands Commission and in exercise of the powers conferred on
it by the State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125) compulsorily acquired a large tract
of land at Greenhill, Legon for the first defendant. The purpose was to enable
the first defendant develop the land into a residential estate. There is a
controversy as to whom this development was meant to benefit. I would leave
this issue for a moment until the need arises for its determination. Suffice it
to say however that the purpose was as already stated to turn the area into a
residential estate.<o:p></o:p>The people of Haatso are not particularly enamoured with these
noble objectives. The plaintiff who describes himself as the head of the Nii
Armah Sogblah family of Osu on behalf of the said family and the people of
Haatso has instituted this action claiming:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo9;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(1). A declaration that the said
executive instrument and the purported compulsory acquisition are ultra vires,
null and void. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo9;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2). ¢30 million damages for
trespass to all that area of land with an approximate acreage of 52.6 which
forms part of the total acreage and also for unlawfully and wrongfully
preventing or delaying developments within the said area. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo9;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(3).
An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants through
its directors, officers or other servants from interfering with the 52.6 acres
described above.”<o:p></o:p>

Briefly put (I will deal with these matters in detail when I come
to deal with the issues raised by the pleadings) the plaintiff based his claim
on the following:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(1)&nbsp;&nbsp; That the first defendant is
not entitled by law to benefit under the compulsory acquisition laws, i.e.
either the State Property and Contracts Act, 1960 (C.A.6) or its successor, the
State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125), the Act under which the acquisition was made. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2)&nbsp;&nbsp; </main>