IDDRISU AYAA TETTEH vs. WINFRED OTUAFRO ARYEH AND TENMOTE AKAKPO [2010]DLSC2576

Date	2010-05-19
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/33/2009
Citation No.	[2010]DLSC2576

BROBBEY JSC (PRESIDING)

ANSAH JSC

DOTSE JSC

YEBOAH JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

W.A.N.ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE DEFENDANTS /APPELLANTS /APPELLANTS.

K. FREMPONG BOADU FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS.

[2010]DLSC2576
																																						<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" >IDDRISU AYAA TETTEH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>WINFRED OTUAFRO ARYEH
AND TENMOTE AKAKPO<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, 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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/33/2009&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 19TH
MAY, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>W.A.N.ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR
THE DEFENDANTS /APPELLANTS /APPELLANTS.<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">

K.
FREMPONG BOADU FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS.<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">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;line-height:150%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">BROBBEY
JSC (PRESIDING), ANSAH JSC, DOTSE JSC, YEBOAH JSC, BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>ANIN
YEBOAH, JSC:
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The facts of this appeal appear not to be in
controversy.&nbsp; The plaintiff/Respondent
(who shall hereafter be referred to as the plaintiff) commenced an action
against the defendant/appellants (who shall be referred to as the defendant) in
this appeal at the Fast Track High Court, Accra.&nbsp; The action was brought in a representative
capacity by the plaintiff suing as the head and lawful representative of Ayaa
Kwabla family.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It appeared that in a previous suit titled: suit №
1/2001: IDDDRISU AMAA TETTEY V. WINFRED OTUATO ARYEH &amp; OR, the trial
judge, His Lordship Mr. Justice Victor Ofoe had on 22/08/2002 determined a land
suit in favour of the plaintiff herein and made far-reaching consequential
orders in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>For a fuller record, the order which the learned
judge made that resulted in the commencement of this case on appeal before us
is as follows:<o:p></o:p>“The
understanding I will put on Exhibit “c” is that defendants’ site plan showing
an area of 336.26 acres has plaintiff’s land of about 200 acres.&nbsp; On each acre of 200 acres the parties agree
that the defendants are to pay ¢2000.&nbsp;
Defendants have occupied further plots of the plaintiff the parties
describe these as residential plot.&nbsp; A
superimposition of the defendants site plan and that of the plaintiff’s and a
survey of defendants’ site plan in Exhibit 1 of area 336.26 acres on the ground
should be able to carve out the 200 acres the subject matter of Exhibit C.&nbsp; This survey work should also be able to carve
out the average on which the residential plots are for the appropriate
compensation to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff.&nbsp; I will order that completion of the survey
work by a surveyor agreed upon by the parties the defendants pays the balance
if any on the 200 acres or more after deduction of the ¢5 million already paid
by the defendants”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We have quoted ad longum, the order made by the
learned trial judge which the defendants herein did not find it necessary or
refused to carry out.&nbsp; The plaintiff
commenced this action more than three years after the order in the previous
suit was made.&nbsp; In the present action it
is the contention of the plaintiff that the value of the land in the area in
dispute had not been the same after the delivery of the judgment as the
defendant had failed or refused to carry out the order the amount of ¢2,000 per
acre as rent was meaningless as at the time the writ culminating in this appeal
was issued.&nbsp; It was further pleaded in
the statement of claim that the extra land of the plaintiff was not covered by
the agreement and had not been formally granted to the defendants’ compensation
which should be commensurate to the present value of land around New Ashongman,
Accra where the land in dispute is situate.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Indeed on the plaintiff’s side of the case very
few issues emerged for determination.&nbsp;
Notable amongst them were: whether or not ever since 29/09/1993 the defendants
have paid the ¢2000.00 amount as rent to the plaintiff, whether in the present
circumstances the agreed ground rent of ¢2000 per acre as amount rent ought to
be received, and lastly whether it is not lawful for defendants to pay
compensation for the extra land taken by the defendants at the current value in
the neighborhood.<o:p></o:p>