WILLIAM KWAKYE & ALICE KWAKYE (PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS) vs. GLOBAL INVESTMENT GROUP (DEFENDANT/APPELLANT) [2010]DLCA7871

WILLIAM KWAKYE & ALICE KWAKYE (PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS) vs. GLOBAL INVESTMENT GRO... [2010]DLCA7871

Date	2010-01-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO.H1/71/09
Citation No.	[2010]DLCA7871

ASARE KORANG J.A.(PRESIDING)

MARFUL SAU J.A.

OFOE J.A

[2010]DLCA7871
																																						<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><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0">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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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; &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>

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

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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>OFOE J.A: 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.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Recovery
of rent arrears of ¢61,425,000 and mense profits till the date of judgment.<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 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&nbsp;
give judgment to them on their counterclaim which I will quote presently.
Most of the&nbsp; grounds of appeal run into
each other I will prefer looking at the substance of the&nbsp; 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&nbsp; 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&nbsp; agreed upon. The appellant took over the
premises, completed &nbsp;it to suit its use
and indeed had been in occupation since May 2003. It would appear a misunderstanding
concerning the&nbsp; execution&nbsp; of the&nbsp;
agreement arose&nbsp; and&nbsp; this unfortunately eventually led to the
appellant questioning the title of the respondents. This&nbsp; act of the appellant Company, according to
its Managing Director, was because&nbsp; they
found, after investigations at the Land Commission, that the respondents after
all did not own the property&nbsp; 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 &nbsp;claiming as earlier stated. The appellant also
counterclaimed for:<o:p></o:p>“a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a
declaration&nbsp; that&nbsp;&nbsp; land&nbsp;
on which&nbsp; the house is built forms
parts of government land which&nbsp; does not
belong to the plaintiffs and accordingly prays&nbsp;
for an&nbsp; order cancelling or
nullifying the purported tenancy&nbsp;
agreement&nbsp; between the plaintiffs
and the defendants.<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Recovery
of all monies so far paid to the plaintiffs by the defendant on the basics (sic)
that the plaintiffs to the property&nbsp; are
fraudulent the amounts collected under false&nbsp;
pretences(sic).<o:p></o:p>d.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Perpetual
Injunction retraining the plaintiffs from interfering the defendants quite and
peaceful enjoyment, occupation and possession of the property.<o:p></o:p>e.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Punitive
and exemplary costs against the plaintiff to deter them from&nbsp; duping&nbsp;
other&nbsp; foreign and&nbsp; unsuspected investors who might&nbsp; wish to invest in the country”.<o:p></o:p>Reading
the record of appeal , I form the view that the&nbsp;
main issue for determination by the trial&nbsp; circuit judge was whether the respondents
were vested with any interest in the property, House No. 6, Wolen Kojo Street,
as to be able&nbsp; 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&nbsp; equitable interest in the property with the legal
title still in&nbsp; the&nbsp; Lands Commission. It is this property that
the respondents contend was sold to them.<o:p></o:p>There
is no evidence in the Propert</main>