WILLIAM KWAKYE & ALICE KWAKYE vs. GLOBAL INVESTMENT GROUP [2010]DLCA6774

Date	2010-01-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/71/09
Citation No.	[2010]DLCA6774

ASARE KORANG J.A. (PRESIDING)

MARFUL SAU J.A.

OFOE J.A

[2010]DLCA6774
																																						<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" >WILLIAM
KWAKYE &amp; ALICE KWAKYE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GLOBAL
INVESTMENT GROUP<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">SUIT
NO. H1/71/09&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 14TH
JANUARY, 2010<o:p></o:p>

ASARE KORANG J.A. (PRESIDING), MARFUL
SAU J.A., OFOE J.A<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>OFOE
J.A. <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs/respondents, who I will in this judgment refer to as the respondents
issued a writ against the defendant Company i.e. the appellants claiming: <o:p></o:p>"a. Recovery of rent arrears of
¢61,425,000 and mense profits till the date of judgment. <o:p></o:p>b. Recovery of possession of that
premises known as No. 6 Wolen Kojo Street Estate, Legon, Accra for various
breaches of covenant of agreement". <o:p></o:p>The
trial judge gave judgment to the respondents for these reliefs. The appellant
aggrieved at the judgment has appealed against the judgment on 16 grounds
expecting this court to set aside the entire judgment and give judgment to them
on their counterclaim which I will quote presently. Most of the grounds of
appeal run into each other I will prefer looking at the substance of the
grounds filed treating those similar in substance together, rather than taking
the grounds as numbered by the appellant. But before then a brief of the case
of the parties which they put before the Honourable Circuit Judge. <o:p></o:p>The
respondents offered their partially completed building to the appellant on
rental. Appellant was to pay for the first year $500 a month and $2,500 a month
from the 2nd year to the fifth year. Further increases were agreed upon. The
appellant took over the premises, completed it to suit its use and indeed had
been in occupation since May 2003. It would appear a misunderstanding
concerning the execution of the agreement arose and this unfortunately
eventually led to the appellant questioning the title of the respondents. This
act of the appellant Company, according to its Managing Director, was because
they found, after investigations at the Land Commission, that the respondents
after all did not own the property as they claim. The land was still for the
state. On the basis of this revelation, according to the Managing Director,
they were advised to stop paying rent to the respondents and they did. For
refusing to pay the rent, the respondents put the company before the trial
circuit court claiming as earlier stated. The appellant also counterclaimed
for: <o:p></o:p>"a. a declaration that land on
which the house is built forms parts of government land which does not belong
to the plaintiffs and accordingly prays for an order cancelling or nullifying
the purported tenancy agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants. <o:p></o:p>b. An order directed to the Lands
Commission of the Republic of Ghana that the said Commission allocates the land
on which the house is built to the defendant since the defendant is the person
or entity which constructed the said house<o:p></o:p>c. Recovery of all monies so far paid
to the plaintiffs by the defendant on the basics (sic) that the plaintiffs to
the property are fraudulent the amounts collected under false pretences(sic). <o:p></o:p>d. Perpetual Injunction retraining the
plaintiffs from interfering the defendants quite and peaceful enjoyment,
occupation and possession of the property. <o:p></o:p>e. Punitive and exemplary costs
against the plaintiff to deter them from duping other foreign and unsuspected
investors who might wish to invest in the country". <o:p></o:p>Reading
the record of appeal, I form the view that the main issue for determination by
the trial circuit judge was whether the respondents were vested with any
interest in the property, House No. 6, Wolen Kojo Street, as to be able to
enter into the tenancy agreement, the manner they did with the appellant
company. Determination of this issue should dispose of appellants grounds of
appeal (a)(c)(d)(i)(j) &amp; (k). <o:p></o:p>There
is no dispute the land on which House No. 6, Wolen Kojo Street is one of the
government lands which fall under the management of the Lands Commission. It
was originally offered to Mrs. Dorothy Vardon in 1977 but no lease was
prepared. I don’t think it is wrong to say Mrs. Vardon had an equitable
interest in the property with the legal title still in the Lands Commission. It
is this property that the respondents contend was sold to them. <o:p></o:p>There
is no evidence in the Property File of the Land Commission that Dorothy Vardon
or any person or entity offered the</main>