JULIANA OWUSU vs. KWAME AMOAKO [2015]DLHC8510

Date	2015-03-16
Suit No.	SUIT NO.C11/9/14
Citation No.	[2015]DLHC8510

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON

KWABENA POKU MENSAH FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT BY HIMSELF.

[2015]DLHC8510
																																						<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" >JULIANA OWUSU<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KWAME AMOAKO<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, KUMASI]<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">

SUIT
NO.C11/9/14&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
16TH MARCH, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWABENA
POKU MENSAH FOR PLAINTIFF/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">

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
BY HIMSELF. <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 JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON<o:p></o:p>

</div>By a writ of
summons dated 3rd February, 2011 issued at the Kodie District Court
by the plaintiff/appellant, to be referred to as the plaintiff, she claimed (a)
declaration of title to a building plot described as No. 57 Block ‘A’ on Sayomo
stool lands at Sayomo, and (b) perpetual injunction against the defendant. The
writ was accompanied by a brief statement of claim in which she asserted that
she acquired the plot of land from the Odikro and elders of Sayomo on or around
the 12th of July, 2010. She averred that on acquisition of it, she
moulded blocks in preparation to erect a building, but she found to her
surprise the Defendant/ Respondent, to be called the Defendant, had already
commenced building on it and laid adverse claim to it. &nbsp;On being served with the writ, defendant
responded by filing a counterclaim on 4th May, 2011. He did so as an
attorney of one Opoku Johsnon whom he described as his uncle and who donated
the power of attorney to him to contest the suit because he is indisposed and
currently bed-ridden, according to the defendant. It is also alleged in the
accompanying statement of defence that the uncle of defendant acquired the
disputed piece of land together with three other plots from the Oheneyere Ama
Serwaa of Sasa, who is the allodial title owner of Sasa lands, and her elders
around the 4th of September, 2004. He gave a different description
to the disputed plot of land. It is described as Plot No 59 Block ‘A’ Sasa,
completely at variance with plaintiff’s description of it as No. 57, Block ‘A’,
Sayomo.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Be that as it
may, the case was heard on merits to conclusion of evidence and on 29th
October, 2013, the lower court adjourned it to 26th November, 2013
to deliver its judgment. However, on 18th November, 2013, a motion
on notice was filed on behalf of the defendant praying for an order to dismiss
the writ for want of jurisdiction of the District Court to hear the suit. The
reason assigned for praying for the order of dismissal of the suit as captured
in the affidavit in support of the motion was that the value of the land in
dispute was not less than GH¢8,500.00, well above the jurisdiction of the
district court in land matters value of which must not exceed GH¢5,000.00.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is instructive to state that neither the
plaintiff nor the defendant stated the values of the properties claimed in their
respective cases. It is recalled that plaintiff claimed a single plot of land,
while defendant counterclaimed for declaration of title to four plots, alleging
they included the property claimed by his adversary except that he gave it a
different identity. However he deposed in the affidavit in support in paragraph
7 as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“That from the facts and evidence so far on record,
it is clear that the value of the land in dispute is not less than Eight
Thousand Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH¢8,500.00).”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I believe the
assertion regarding the value of the property arises from the evidence of the
defendant when in his evidence-in-chief he said his uncle bought the four plots
mentioned in the counterclaim at GH¢8,500.00 a plot. It was on reliance of this
piece of evidence that the motion was filed on behalf of the defendant praying
for the suit to be dismissed, instead of being referred to the Honourable Chief
Justice, for her direction, because the value of the land was alleged to be
beyond the jurisdiction of the District Court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The motion
was rightly opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that the parties did not
state the value of the disputed land in their respective claims, contending
strenuously that &nbsp;in such a situation the
value of</main>