DUMEGAH AHADJI DODO, HLORTATOR KPEGLA, TOGBE AHIL II AND TOGBE KPORTI AMENGOR vs. BRITISH TOBACCO CO. LTD, DR. ABLOR AND SOLOMON HODANU [2014]DLSC2934

DUMEGAH AHADJI DODO, HLORTATOR KPEGLA, TOGBE AHIL II AND TOGBE KPORTI AMENGOR vs... [2014]DLSC2934

Date	2014-06-19
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J8/61/2014
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC2934

BENIN J.S.C

ROBERTSON KPATSA WITH HIM SENANU ASHIAGBOR AWUKU ATAKLI AND

KOFI KUKUBOR FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/ RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/ APPLICANTS.

ANTHONY DESAWU ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS.

[2014]DLSC2934
																																						<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" >DUMEGAH AHADJI DODO,
HLORTATOR KPEGLA, TOGBE AHIL II AND TOGBE KPORTI AMENGOR<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BRITISH TOBACCO CO. LTD,
DR. ABLOR AND SOLOMON HODANU<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. J8/61/2014&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 19TH
JUNE, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>ROBERTSON KPATSA WITH HIM
SENANU ASHIAGBOR, AWUKU ATAKLI AND KOFI KUKUBOR FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/ APPLICANTS.<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">

&nbsp;ANTHONY DESAWU ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/
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">

BENIN J.S.C. SITTING AS A
SINGLE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT&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;&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;
<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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>BENIN JSC:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This is an application by the plaintiffs/defendants
for a stay of execution of the judgment or decision of the Court of Appeal
dated 23rd January, 2014 pending appeal to this court against the
said decision. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by the
defendants/respondents herein and entered judgment in their favour on their
counterclaim.<o:p></o:p>The subject-matter of the
dispute is a piece and parcel of land situate at Sogakope. Issues of title and
recovery of possession, inter alia, were raised. Following the Court of
Appeal’s decision the plaintiffs/applicants herein appealed to this Court,
which is not yet seised with the appeal. So under the rules of Court, C. I. 16,
the plaintiffs/applicants first made an application to the Court of Appeal to
stay execution of the judgment, but the Court of Appeal dismissed it on 14th
April, 2014. Thus this is a repeat application to this Court under C. I. 16.<o:p></o:p>The facts culminating in
this application may be stated briefly as follows. In or around 1958 the
plaintiffs granted a fifty year lease of the land in dispute to the British
Tobacco Co. (1st defendant). The plaintiffs acted in their capacity
as the representatives of the Fieve State, owners of the land. According to the
plaintiffs they did not intend to renew the lease since they had decided to use
the land for other purposes to serve the community interest. However, to cut a
long story short, upon the expiry of the lease, the lessees did not restore the
land to the plaintiffs. Apparently the 1st defendant had
re-negotiated a fresh lease with persons who had not been authorised by the
land owners. It turned up that prior to the 1958 lease agreement between the
plaintiffs and the 1st defendant, the Government of the then Gold Coast
had compulsorily acquired the land in dispute. So in February 2008, the
Government of Ghana granted a fresh fifty year lease to the 1st
defendant who in turn sub leased the unexpired term to the 2nd
defendant. As a result the defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs to the
land. For the purposes of this decision the brief facts recounted herein will
suffice.<o:p></o:p>The High Court gave judgment
for the plaintiffs, but this judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeal which
accepted the validity of the Government’s acquisition of the land that had effectively
extinguished any other interests in the land, as held by the Court of Appeal.<o:p></o:p>Grounds for the application
are set out in paragraph 14 through 17 of the affidavit in support. The key
elements contained therein are:<o:p></o:p>(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
that the appeal
raises serious questions of law;<o:p></o:p>(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&n</main>