GLADYS ANANE ADDO & 9 VS. KUMASI METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY, KEJETIA TRADERS ASSOCIATION, [2007]DLSC2440

GLADYS ANANE ADDO & 9 VS. KUMASI METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY, KEJETIA TRADERS ASSOCIAT... [2007]DLSC2440

Date	2007-11-28
Suit No.	Civil Appeal No. J4/19/2006
Citation No.	[2007]DLSC2440

Miss Akuffo J.S.C.(Presiding)

Brobbey J.S.C.

Dr. Date-Bah J.C.S.

Mrs. Adinyira J.S.C

Asiamah J.S.C.

SIR DENNIS ADJEI FOR THE RESPONDENT

MR. OSEI POKU FOR CO-RESPONDENT (K.M.A.)

MR. ATTA AKYEA FOR THE APPELLANTS.

[2007]DLSC2440
																																						<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" >GLADYS ANANE ADDO &amp; 9<o:p></o:p>VS.<o:p></o:p>KUMASI METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY, KEJETIA TRADERS ASSOCIATION,<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>Civil
Appeal&nbsp;&nbsp; No. J4/19/2006<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: 28th November, 2007.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>SIR
DENNIS ADJEI FOR THE RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>MR.
OSEI POKU FOR CO-RESPONDENT (K.M.A.)<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">

MR.
ATTA AKYEA FOR THE APPELLANTS.<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 1.0pt 0in">

Miss
Akuffo J.S.C.(Presiding), Brobbey J.S.C., Dr. Date-Bah &nbsp;J.C.S., Mrs. Adinyira &nbsp;J.S.C, Asiamah &nbsp;J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>REASONS FOR JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>SOPHIA A. B. AKUFFO<o:p></o:p>On
October 31st 2007 this Court delivered its judgment in this matter, dismissing
the appeal herein as being without any merit and reserved reasons for the
judgment to the date hereof. Following therefore are the reasons for our
judgment:-<o:p></o:p>By
a Writ of Summons issued on March 09, 2001, Madam Gladys Anane Addo and 9 other
persons (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Plaintiffs’), all claiming to be
members of the Kejetia Traders Association, sued the Kumasi Metropolitan
Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1st Defendant’ or ‘KMA’) and the
said Association through its Chairman (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
‘Association’ or ‘the Appellant’) claiming the following reliefs:-<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A declaration that KMA (1st Defendant in
the action) is the sole body with the legal authority to allocate shops and
stalls owned by KMA at Kejetia, Kumasi.<o:p></o:p>A
declaration that it is unlawful for the Association (2nd Defendant in the
action) to allocate shops and stalls that have been constructed at Kejetia.<o:p></o:p>A
declaration that the original licensees of shops and stalls at Kejetia (who
included the Plaintiffs) were entitled to be given the first option, or
priority, in the allocation of the new stores at Kejetia that had been
pre-financed by them.<o:p></o:p>An
order for accounts and <o:p></o:p>An
order of perpetual injunction restraining KMA and the Association from
allocating any shops or stall at Kejetia without giving first option to the
Plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p>For
the purposes of this appeal, the relevant background facts are that the
Plaintiffs, together with some other persons were all licensees of KMA and
previously occupied certain shops and stalls at Kejetia, Kumasi. As part of a
beautification programme, the government of Ghana decided to demolish and
rebuild all shops and stalls at Kejetia. The newly built shops and stalls were
to be occupied by the original occupants of the demolished structures.
Consequently, the Plaintiffs, who are members of the Association, together with
other members, were called upon to, and did make, contributions to pre-finance
the reconstruction of the shops and stalls. Each person paid her contribution
of, at least, ¢8,250,000.00 (now GH¢ 825.00) to the Association. It also appears
that those who delayed in making their payments had to pay penalties of various
amounts. Upon the completion of the new shops and stalls, the same were
distributed by the Association (rather than KMA, which by law is the duly
authorised body to own and allocate market stalls and shops). The Association,
however, failed to ensure that the shops were allocated along the previously
agreed distribution principles. The Plaintiffs were amongst those aggrieved by
this state of affairs. <o:p></o:p>Of
the issues settled at the Summons for Directions, the most relevant for the
purposes of this appeal is issue 5 which states that “an account be filed by
the 2nd Defendant”. <o:p></o:p>The
trial court, in a judgement dated 25th October 2002, entered judgment in favour
of the Plaintiffs on all their claims (and also in favour of the 1st Defendant
on its counterclaim for a declaration that it is the statutory body with the
power to construct, manage and control public markets in Kumasi; and an order
of perpetual injunction restraining the Association from usurping the lawful
functions of KMA). Consequently, on the Plaintiffs’ claim against the
Appellants for accounts, the court invoked Order 33 Rule 3 of the erstwhile
High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (LN 140A) (hereinafter referred to as
the High Court Rules) and ordered that:-<o:p></o:p>The
executives of the Association account for all monies collected or paid to them
and <o:p></o:p>The
accounts should be audited by the Serious Fraud Office.<o:p></o:p>The
learned trial judge also ordered that KMA should assume responsibility for the
reallocation of the shops and stalls, as well as the financial administration
of the project.<o:p></o:p>Being
dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the Association, appealed to
the Court of Appeal on no less than 11 grounds. The Court of Appeal in a
judgement entered on 29th October 2004 (Omari-Sasu JA dissenting) upheld the
judgement of the High Court and dismissed the appeal in its entirety. It needs
to be emphasised, at this point, that the learned Omari-Sasu JA, in his
dissenting opinion, did not really touch upon the order for accounts made by
the High Court. Rather, his view was that KMA ought to bear the responsibility
for the Plaintiffs’ plight since it had shirked its statutory responsibility
and failed to perform effective oversight of the activities of the Association,
which had been merely acting on KMA’s behalf.<o:p></o:p>