ADOMAKO ANANE vs. NANA OWUSU AGYEMANG AND 7 OTHERS [2014]DLSC4421

Date	2014-02-26
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO: J4/42/2013
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC4421

WOOD (MRS.) CJ (PRESIDING)

ANSAH JSC YEBOAH JSC

BONNIE JSC

AKAMBA JSC

OBENG MANU JNR. ESQ FOR THE DEFENDANTS/ RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANTS.

EDWARD EGBLOGBE ANAGLATE FOR THE PLAINTIFF /APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT.

[2014]DLSC4421
																																						<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" >ADOMAKO ANANE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA OWUSU AGYEMANG AND
7 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[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:&nbsp; J4/42/2013&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 26TH FEBRUARY, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>OBENG MANU JNR. ESQ FOR
THE DEFENDANTS/ RESPONDENTS/ 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">

EDWARD
EGBLOGBE ANAGLATE FOR THE PLAINTIFF /APPELLANT/ 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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

WOOD
(MRS.) CJ (PRESIDING), ANSAH JSC YEBOAH JSC, BONNIE JSC, AKAMBA 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">

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

</div>WOOD (MRS.), CJ;<o:p></o:p>The
oft quoted legal maxim “Justice delayed is justice denied”, coined by the
British politician, William Gladstone (1809-1898), is no mere cliché. The right
to fair trial in a timely manner is neither a courtesy nor a favour, but a
fundamental right.&nbsp; Protracted delays in
the administration of justice,&nbsp; impact
negatively &nbsp;not only on those who access
the courts, such as the victims of crime, accused persons who are acquitted at
the end of their trial, parties in civil proceedings and their privies, lawyers
who practice before the courts but indeed the entire justice system. The
judicial history of this relatively simple family related land matter, which
was commenced in the High Court Kumasi, as far back as the 4th of April
1974, provides an insight into the harmful effects of systemic delays in the
administration of justice. &nbsp;Regrettably,
it has taken forty long years, a whole generation, for this case to finally find
its way into this court; the court of last appeal. We hope court business shall
always be managed in ways that will not occasion a repeat of this parody of
justice.<o:p></o:p>BACKGROUND FACTS<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff/ Appellant/ Respondent, (Respondent), a senior member of the
immediate Asona family of Asamankama-Offinso, acting on behalf of himself and
the family, took out a writ of summons against the Defendants /Respondents/ Appellants
(Appellants) jointly and severally for declaration of title to certain
properties listed in a schedule attached to the statement of claim, recovery of
possession of those properties and an order of perpetual injunction. This
appeal relates to one of these properties, the house numbered 0.1. 92, Ashanti-New
Town, Kumasi. The original claim which was in relation to all those properties was
directed against only two named executors of one Osei Hwirie, deceased, the
person around whom this entire controversy revolves. But, by an order of
Anterkyi J, both writ and statement of claim were amended to include the 3rd
to 8th Appellants, who are beneficiaries of the will of Hwirie.
Again, in the course of time, the Respondent limited the claim to only the
house numbered 01.92.<o:p></o:p>The
case presented by the parties in this legal battle is in reality so uncomplicated
that it is most unfortunate that it has taken so long for it to be brought to
closure. The Respondent’s case is that in 1921, Kwabena Amankwaa, deceased, the
maternal uncle of Hwirie, acquired plot No 0.192, from the Chief Commissioner
of Kumasi for a period of twenty –one years certain, and constructed a swish
building thereon. On his death intestate some six months to the expiry of the
said lease in 1942, Hwirie in his capacity as customary successor inherited the
property, as family property. &nbsp;However,
some four years later, in 1946, Hwirie acquired the self same property, from
the Asantehene, this time round, in his personal name, for a period of ninety
–nine years. He pulled down the swish building and constructed a sandcrete
building which he however later devised under his will, to the 3rd-8th
Appellants as beneficiaries. The Respondents, contending that the lease which
Hwirie as customary successor subsequently acquired in 1946, together with the
building thereon, constituted family property and not his self acquired
property, sued on behalf of the family in protection of its property. <o:p></o:p>Not
surprisingly, the Appellants countered the claim. They maintained that the
family’s interest in the property was completely extinguished when the late Amankwaa’s
lease expired in 1942.&nbsp; They further
contended that with the property having lost its family character altogether, Hwirie,
was legally entitled to and did in fact take out the subsequent lease in his individual
capacity, and was indeed entitled to dispose of it in the manner that he did,
namely, as his self acquired property. <o:p></o:p>As
is to be expected, the pleadings on both sides raised a number of pertinent
triable issues, as is borne out by both the summons for directions and
additional issues. It took a whole decade, after the commencement of the action,
for judgment to be pronounced by the High Court differently constituted. While
the evidence was received by Korsah J, who reserved judgment on 15th
August 1980, the decision, with the full reasons reserved, to be given at a later
date, was delivered by Okunnor J on the 21st of August 1986, nearly
six years</main>