MADAM LINDA SAGOE AND OTHERS vs. SOCIAL SECURITY AND NATIONAL INSURANCE TRUST [SSNIT] [2012]DLSC2678

MADAM LINDA SAGOE AND OTHERS vs. SOCIAL SECURITY AND NATIONAL INSURANCE TRUST [S... [2012]DLSC2678

Date	2012-05-30
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/50/2011
Citation No.	[2012]DLSC2678

AKUFFO [MS.] (JSC) (PRESIDING)

ADINYIRA [MRS.] JSC

OWUSU [MS] JSC

YEBOAH JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

NO APPEARANCE FOR THE APELLANTS.

PETER ZWENNES FOR THE REPONDENT

[2012]DLSC2678
																																						<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" >MADAM LINDA
SAGOE AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SOCIAL
SECURITY AND NATIONAL INSURANCE TRUST [SSNIT]<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. J4/50/2011&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
30TH MAY, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>NO
APPEARANCE FOR THE APELLANTS.<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">

PETER
ZWENNES FOR THE REPONDENT&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

</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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>GBADEGBE, JSC;<o:p></o:p>My Lords, by the appeal herein, the plaintiffs seek
a reversal of the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal that allowed in
favour of the defendants an appeal from the decision of an Accra High Court. It
appears from the decision with which we are concerned in these proceedings that
the learned justices of the Court of Appeal came to the conclusion on the
evidence that the plaintiffs had failed to discharge the burden of proof that
they assumed in the matter. Consequently, they dismissed the claim of the
plaintiffs and entered judgment in favour of the defendant but limited only to
part of their counterclaim. The facts relevant to our determination in these
proceedings are as follows.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiffs desirous of putting up residential
dwellings severally negotiated the purchase from the James Town Stool, Accra of
various plots of land within an area called Dunkonaa in the Greater Accra
Region.&nbsp; The negotiations and purchase of
the said plots according to the pleadings filed on their behalf took place on
different dates between 1990 to 2004. The defendant corporation was in or about
the year 1996 allocated portions of land that had been previously acquired by
the government under EI 5 of 1993. The said acquisition was made primarily for
the benefit of members of Ghana Real Estate Development Association (GREDA) but
when they were unable to meet the requirements of the grant to them the
government allocated 507.75 acres out of the 586.25 acres of the land compulsorily
acquiredto the defendant. The allocation to the defendant was by means of a
lease commencing from 1 November 1996 for a term of 99 years.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;As a result
of the grant of the leasehold to the defendant by the Lands Commission, the
defendant was obliged to pay compensation to the previous owners, the James
Town Stool. In the course of its entry on the land, the defendant noticed
several acts of encroachment in the form of building works on the land. The
defendant caused notices to be served on the developers and when the matter
could not be peaceably resolved, it caused the buildings on the land to be
demolished. The plaintiffs claiming to be the owners of the properties
demolished took out the action herein claiming general and special damages and
a declaration that the defendant in utilising the area allocated to it had
exceeded same by 43.30 acres as well as an order of perpetual injunction. Also
claimed by the plaintiffs was an order of cancellation of the Land Title
Certificate issued to the defendant on the ground of fraud.<o:p></o:p>The matter proceeded to a full scale trial before
the High Court, Accra that was determined in favour of the plaintiffs with the
award of special damages; perpetual injunction and the cancellation of a Land
Title Certificate issued in favour of the defendant in respect of the area
allocated to them. The defendant successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The plaintiffs thereafter launched the instant appeal to us seeking a reversal
of the decision of the Court of Appeal. Before us in these proceedings, the plaintiffs
by their notice of appeal have raised several objections to the judgment, the
subject matter of the instant appeal. In this delivery, consideration would be
given to the arguments presented to us by the plaintiffs in so far as they are
relevant to our determination of the appeal herein.<o:p></o:p>Since the claim of the plaintiffs included damages
for trespass and an order of perpetual injunction, on the strength of settled
judicial opinion although there was no claim for declaration of title, the
reliefs they sought necessarily required their title to the lands to be
determined. It being so, the plaintiffs assumed the burden of convincingly and
satisfactorily proving their respective titles to the areas that they had
occupied before the demolition. In their determination, the learned justices of
the Court of Appeal referring to among others, the case of Kwesi Arhin v Davies [1996-97] SCGLR 660 concluded that the plaintiffs
had failed to discharge the evidential burden on them having regard to the
state of the pleadings. The plaintiffs in a bid to persuade us to reverse the
decision of the Court of Appeal in their favour have submitted considerable
arguments to us partly of law and of mixed fact and law to the contrary. For
reasons that follow shortly, the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were
right and expounded the law correctly on the questions that arise for our
decision in the matter herein.<o:p></o:p>Hav</main>