LUTTERODT vs. NYARKO AND ANOTHER [1999]DLHC336

Date	1999-06-08
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1999]DLHC336

DORDZIE J

AMEGATCHER FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

ANDOH FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1999]DLHC336
																																						<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">LUTTERODT<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">NYARKO AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 1 GLR 29<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AMEGATCHER FOR THE PLAINTIFF.ANDOH FOR THE
DEFENDANTS.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CORAM:DORDZIE J___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________JUDGMENT OF DORDZIE J.<o:p></o:p>In 1976 the plaintiff issued a writ in the circuit court against
the defendants claiming damages for trespass to his land, plot No 131 Dansoman
and an order for perpetual injunction. One Garibah Amissah joined that action
as co-defendant. On 18 February 1982 the circuit court gave judgment in that
suit No CCL 68/76 in favour of the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>The defendants appealed against the circuit court’s decision. At
the Court of Appeal the parties settled the matter out of court and filed terms
of settlement varying the circuit court’s judgment. The contents of the terms of
settlement is in evidence as exhibit D in the present case and it reads as
follows:<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">“(1) That judgment is hereby entered for the plaintiff-respondent
in respect of the area edged blue on exhibit Y (plan B) as per the
plaintiff-respondent’s document No 1018/77 dated April 1974. <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">(2) That the order of perpetual injunction granted by the said
court is to relate to the area edged blue on exhibit Y. <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">(3) That the award of damages of 41,000 for trespass is to stand.<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">(4) That Mr E A Addo, a licensed surveyor of Asylum Down, Accra is
to physically demarcate the area edged blue on exhibit Y.”<o:p></o:p>Exhibit Y was an exhibit in the suit before the circuit court. The
Court of Appeal entered consent judgment on the above terms on 7 May 1985.<o:p></o:p>In executing the above judgment the licensed surveyor, Mr EA Addo,
made attempts to demarcate the area adjudged to be plaintiff’s on 27 September
1983 in the presence of all the parties. He submitted a report which is in
evidence in this case as exhibit E. By the said report the physical demarcation
of plot No 131 by the site plan attached to the plaintiff’s lease agreement
from the State Housing Corporation is faulty and inconsistent with the
description of plot 131 in the schedule to the same document. Plot 131 if
demarcated physically by the said site plan affects three existing houses and a
road. What is contained in the site plan does not conform with the existing
general pattern of the State Housing Corporation layout of the area.<o:p></o:p>Subsequently, the plaintiff applied to the Court of Appeal for a
review of the consent judgment. This application was dismissed. The plaintiff
sued the State Housing Corporation for an order of rectification of the site
plan attached to his lease agreement. He obtained this order and the rectified
site plan was approved by the High Court. The plaintiff then applied to the
Court of Appeal to have the consent judgment set aside. This application was
dismissed by the Court of Appeal on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to
deal with the matter.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff therefore brought this fresh action in this court
praying for the following reliefs:<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">“(1) an order setting aside the terms of settlement and consent
judgment of the Court of Appeal in civil suit No 16/83 dated 7 May 1985 on the
ground that the basis of the settlement and judgment was made under mistaken
belief on the part of the parties that the area edged blue on exhibit Y
existed. <o:p></o:p>