ADOM ARA ENGINEERNG SERVICE LTD. (PLAINTIFF) vs. DELE BANBOYE, WORLD MISSION AGENCY INCORPORATED AND XOESE GLYMIN (DEFENDANTS) [2008]DLHC7083

ADOM ARA ENGINEERNG SERVICE LTD. (PLAINTIFF) vs. DELE BANBOYE, WORLD MISSION AGE... [2008]DLHC7083

Date	2008-07-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO.E1/39/2006
Citation No.	[2008]DLHC7083

HIS LORDSHIP NANA GYAMERA TAWIAH J.

[2008]DLHC7083
																																						<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" >ADOM ARA ENGINEERNG SERVICE LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<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>DELE BANBOYE, WORLD MISSION AGENCY INCORPORATED AND XOESE GLYMIN<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, TEMA]<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">

</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">

HIS LORDSHIP NANA GYAMERA TAWIAH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>Plaintiff
company Adom Ara Engineering Services Limited, suing per its Managing Director,
claims against the three defendants herein: <o:p></o:p>(a)
Declaration that any sale of Plot No L1/7/ 12 &amp; 13 Light Industrial Area,
Tema by 2nd defendant claiming per the 1st defendant to 3rd defendant is a
nullity <o:p></o:p>(b)
Recovery of possession <o:p></o:p>(c)
Damages for trespass. <o:p></o:p>(d)
Mesne profits <o:p></o:p>(e)
Perpetual injunction<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants are
respectively Dele Baboye, World Mission Agency Incorporated (now Winners
Chapel) and Xoese Glymin. <o:p></o:p>Plaintiff
whose Managing Director, Azaria Kwamena Atta Baiden, was once a member of 2nd
defendant church acquired the disputed land from the Tema Development
Corporation (T D C) on February 20, 1982 for a term of 60 years with an option
to renew for a further term of 30 years. Around November 1989 plaintiff company
gave out the said land to 2nd defendant church, and same is evidenced by a
letter of authorization dated 9/11/08 wherein it was stated: “<o:p></o:p>This
gesture is a free will offering of the entire Board of Directors of the above
named liability company” <o:p></o:p>Plaintiff
company again confirmed the said offer of the land to 2nd defendant church by a
statutory declaration made on 5/11/02 by plaintiff to the effect that plaintiff
company had relinquished its rights title and interest in the said property to
2nd defendant church. Additionally by a letter dated 26/3/03 plaintiff company
wrote to the T. D. C. seeking its consent to transfer its (ie plaintiff
company’s) ownership of the land to 2nd defendant church. By reason of the
above events 2nd defendant, allegedly with the full knowledge and assistance of
plaintiff, subsequently sold the land to 3rd defendant who subsequently entered
the land and commenced development of same. It is against this background that
plaintiff company instituted this action claiming the reliefs above-quoted. <o:p></o:p>The
defendants filed a defence and counterclaimed against plaintiff company for: <o:p></o:p>(a)
A declaration that plaintiff voluntarily assigned the land the subject matter
of this present suit to 2nd defendant. <o:p></o:p>(b)
A declaration that having voluntarily assigned the said plot of land to 2nd
defendant plaintiff is not entitled to recover same. <o:p></o:p>(c)
A declaration that as assignee, 2nd defendant is entitled to deal with the said
land as owner in any manner it thinks including disposing of same to 3rd
defendant. <o:p></o:p>(d)
An order of perpetual injunction restraining plaintiff, its servants, agents,
assigns, privies or any persons howsoever called from in any way interfering
with defendants’ rights, interest, possession and enjoyment of the land the
subject matter of the present suit. <o:p></o:p>(e)
Costs. <o:p></o:p>Several
issues were set down for trial, but in my opinion, the undermentioned issues
stand out clear: <o:p></o:p>(a)
Whether plaintiff company divested itself of its interest in the land to 2nd
defendant church. <o:p></o:p>(b)
Whether the land was released to 2nd defendant church with conditions, ie
erection of administrative block for the church <o:p></o:p>(c)
Whether 3rd defendant is the assignee of the plot of land in dispute by virtue
of purchaser for valuable consideration from 2nd defendant. <o:p></o:p>