GHANA AIRPORTS COMPANY LTD vs. OSEI ANSONG AND ANOTHER [2011]DLCA3154

Date	2011-10-28
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/57/2011
Citation No.	[2011]DLCA3154

MARIAMA OWUSU (MISS) J.A. (PRESIDING)

F.G. KORBIEH J.A.

IRENE C. DANQUAH (MS) J.A.

[2011]DLCA3154
																																						<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" >GHANA AIRPORTS COMPANY LTD<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>OSEI ANSONG AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>CIVIL
APPEAL NO. H1/57/2011&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;DATED:
28TH OCTOBER, 2011 <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>MARIAMA
OWUSU (MISS) J.A. (PRESIDING), F.G. KORBIEH J.A., IRENE C. DANQUAH (MS) J.A.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div>F.G.
KORBIEH, J.A.<o:p></o:p>This appeal emanates from
a ruling of the High Court, Kumasi presided over by Gibson Adzagli, J. In that
ruling the trial High Court dismissed an application brought by the
defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) praying “for an
order to set aside and/or dismiss the plaintiff’s writ of summons and statement
of claim as well as all other proceedings consequent upon the writ of summons
as same is not cognizable by any rule or procedure known to the Court…” In
order to better understand the issues involved in this appeal one has to go back
in time to look at the historical antecedents of the case. <o:p></o:p>In
an earlier suitNo. IRL/51/2010 entitled “Ghana Airports Company Ltd. v. Osei Ansong”,
the appellant herein, as the plaintiff then, instituted an action against the 1st
plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 1st respondent)
seeking the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>a)
A declaration that the defendant’s conduct in constructing on the Dote end of
the run-way of the Kumasi Airport land which is part of the said airport is
trespassory, unlawful, contrary to the public good and interest of the
plaintiff which is under legal duty to ensure the safety of the Kumasi Airport
and its environs. <o:p></o:p>b)A
declaration that the intended expansion of the said Passions International
School is also trespassory and inhibitive of the intended expansion of the
Kumasi Airport.<o:p></o:p>c)
An order of cancellation of any document or transaction purporting to in any
manner grant title to or vest part of the Kumasi Airport lands in the defendant
as any such document will be fraudulent and null and void ab initio.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; d) An order of perpetual injunction
restraining the defendant, its agents, representatives, assigns, officials,
privies and persons or entities acting on its behalf and/or at its direction
from continuing the patent illegality.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; e) Recovery of possession of the portion of
the said Kumasi Airport upon which the defendant has trespassed and developed in
spite of warnings and entreating by the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; f) General, special, exemplary and punitive
damages for the defendant’s fraudulent and wrongful conduct.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; g)&nbsp;
such further orders as theHonourable Court may deem fit.<o:p></o:p>In
the accompanying statement of claim the appellant herein averred as follows,
among others: that the respondent herein had been a trespasser on part of the
Kumasi Airport land and had constructed a school building on that part of the
land; that despite several written and verbal warnings, the 1strespondent
had continued with the construction of another structure for his school on the
land in dispute; that the appellant had petitioned the Lands Commission and the
Regional Minister and this had culminated in a meeting at which the respondent had
admitted his error but pleaded for time to relocate the school and also given a
written undertaking (through his solicitors) to yield vacant possession of the
land to the appellant whenever the appellant required him to do so; that all
that notwithstanding the respondent had evinced a clear intention not to abide
by his undertaking and thus demonstrated bad faith; that the 1strespondent
had hidden behind some documents that the appellant considered fraudulent,
ineffectual and intended to over-reach the appellant; that only the
intervention of the Court would compel the respondent to respect the law. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
1strespondent reacted to the writ and statement of claim by filing a
statement of defence in which he admitted virtually every averment made by the
appellant save that the documents it had were genuine and produced by a
competent authority. He also pleaded for more time to relocate the school.Upon
receipt of the statement of defence, the appellant herein filed and
subsequently moved a motion for summary judgment. In his response to the
motion, counsel for the 1strespondent herein again admitted that the
land was indeed not for the respondent and pleaded that all that the respondent
wanted was a little more time to relocate the school. The High Court before
which the motion came granted the application and entered judgment f</main>