EDWARD A. AWLKU (SUBSTITUTED BY MRS. DINAH AWUKU) (1ST CLAIMANT) vs. BRYNE YAW ATTIGAH (2ND CLAIMANT) EMMANUEL KOFI TETTEH (3RD CLAIMANT) [2011]DLHC7456

EDWARD A. AWLKU (SUBSTITUTED BY MRS. DINAH AWUKU) (1ST CLAIMANT) vs. BRYNE YAW A... [2011]DLHC7456

Date	2011-12-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO L.664/95
Citation No.	[2011]DLHC7456

HIS LORDSHIP K. AMISSAH-KOOMSON J.

KWAME BOAFO AKUFFO FOR APPLICANT

RICHARD BOBISON FOR RESPONDENT

[2011]DLHC7456
																																						<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" >EDWARD A. AWLKU (SUBSTITUTED BY MRS. DINAH AWUKU)<o:p></o:p>(1ST CLAIMANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BRYNE YAW ATTIGAH<o:p></o:p>(2ND CLAIMANT)<o:p></o:p>EMMANUEL KOFI TETTEH<o:p></o:p>(3RD CLAIMANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, 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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO L.664/95&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; &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: 21ST DECEMBER, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWAME BOAFO AKUFFO FOR APPLICANT <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">

RICHARD BOBISON FOR
RESPONDENT <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">

HIS LORDSHIP K.
AMISSAH-KOOMSON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div>Following
conflicting claims over an area of land situate at Mamobi, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd
Claimants appeared before the Land Title Adjudication Committee Tribunal under
Sections 22 and 23 (6) (b) of the Land Title Registration Law, PNDCL 152. <o:p></o:p>The
statement of Claim of the 3rd Claimant Applicant herein before the Land Title
Adjudicating Committee, attached to the instant application as exhibit “A-5”
sought for: <o:p></o:p>a) Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of
land situate lying and being at Maamobi and bounded on the North-East by lane
measuring 70 feet more or less. <o:p></o:p>b) Perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd
Claimants by themselves, their agents, assigns and privies or otherwise
howsoever from entering the land in dispute. <o:p></o:p>On
13th December, 1994 the Land title Adjudicating Tribunal gave judgment against
the 3rd Claimant/Applicant herein. Dissatisfied the 3rd Claimant/Applicant
successfully appealed to the High Court. The relief sought from the appellant
High Court as per exhibit “A” was “That the judgment of the Land Title
Adjudicating Committee dated 13th December 1994 be set aside and judgment
entered accordingly for the Appellant.” <o:p></o:p>In
delivering the judgment the High Court concluded as follows:— <o:p></o:p>"In the end therefore, the appeal is allowed. The
judgment of the trial tribunal is hereby set aside and in its place, judgment
is entered in favour of the appellant on his claim for a declaration of title
to all that piece of land at Mamobi Accra bounded on the North-East by a lane
on the North-West by a Highway Street. On the South-West by Nima Highway; on
the South-East by Stool land" <o:p></o:p>The
1st Claimant alone appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court
against the judgment of the High Court dated 12th February 2003 (Exhibit
"A-1") Both appeals were unsuccessful. Significantly all the
judgments of the superior courts on appeal — the High Court judgment of 13-2-03
(exhibit A-1) of the Court of Appeal Judgment of 13-3-08 of 13-3-08[sic]
(exhibit "A2") and the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 29-6-10
(exhibit 2 “A-3”) were silent on 3rd Claimant's claim for perpetual injunction.
In the instant application by the 3rd Claimant she as administratrix of the
estate of her late husband contends the omission was a "Clerical
error" or accidental omission" which must be corrected to render the
judgment meaningful. <o:p></o:p>Order
16 rule 10 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2004, C.I. 47 provides <o:p></o:p>“10 Clerical mistakes in judgments or orders or errors
arising therein from any accidental ship or omission may at any time be
corrected by the court either on its own motion on notice to the parties or on
an application without an appeal” <o:p></o:p>It
was submitted by the applicant that the correction of the error or omission
will not inconvenience the Ist Claimant respondent. Besides it will not be
inconsistent with the judgment of High Court dated 13-2-03. <o:p></o:p>The
1st Claimant opposes the instant appli</main>