AMOAKO BLANKSON vs. NANA BONSU [2016]DLCA4555

Date	2016-05-10
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: H1/8/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA4555

AYEBI J.A. (PRESIDING)

TORKORNOO J. A.

DOMAKYAAREH J. A.

STEPHEN OPPONG WITH ENOCH AMOAH FOR APPELLANT

WILLIAM KUSI FOR RESPONDENT

[2016]DLCA4555
																																						<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" >AMOAKO BLANKSON<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA BONSU<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<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">

SUIT NO.: H1/8/2016&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 10TH MAY, 2016<o:p></o:p>

WILLIAM
KUSI FOR RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>TORKORNOO, J. A:<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff/Appellant is one of several artisans and tradesmen who were plying
their trade on the fringes of the St Joseph Roman Catholic Junior Secondary
School compound in Suame, Kumasi, a place well known for industrial activity.
With time, the Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly and the Parents Teacher Association
of the school complained about the effect of commercial activity on the safety
and security of the children. <o:p></o:p>According
to the Appellant’s case, the tradesmen formed a ‘loose union’ with himself as
chairman and the first Defendant/Respondent as secretary. They petitioned the
Assembly and the school not to be removed from the grounds of the school. In
1998, they entered into an agreement with the school which allowed them to
build permanent trading places around the school. They were first to build a
wall around the school. Each tradesman was allocated the space behind the part
of the wall where they plied their business in a makeshift manner before the
decision to build the wall. It was agreed that each tradesman would build his
permanent shop on this space behind the wall. In his pleadings and evidence,
the Appellant urged that the space allocated to him which was where he had
plied his trade previously was numbered as Store No. 11. By the end of the
trial, it was identified as Store No. 12.<o:p></o:p>It
was the case of the Appellant that in order to ensure uniformity of the store
structures, the 1st Respondent was engaged by the Association/Union to
construct the shops for everyone. Each of the tradesmen was required to pay the
1st Respondent Gh¢900 as consideration for the construction of their particular
shop. It was also the uncontested case of the Appellant, supported by exhibits,
that between January 1999 and December 1999, the Appellant had paid Gh¢400 leaving
a balance of Gh¢500 to be paid for the construction of the store. According to
the Appellant, when he tried to tender the remaining Gh¢500 to the 1st
Respondent in December 1999, the 1st Respondent refused to accept same. His
position was that he had reallocated the shop to another tradesman on account
of the Appellant’s failure to complete the payment early. <o:p></o:p>The
Appellant registered his protest to this position in several ways and after
various altercations that run through police stations and courts, the Appellant
commenced this suit. In his last amended Writ of Summons, the Appellant claimed
for <o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A declaration that he being the
original allotttee of the land marked out as store No 12, located on the
grounds of the St Joseph RC JSS Suame, and which plot was meant for the
construction of stores, the Defendant had no right to arbitrarily wrongly
allocate the said store to another person, so as to deprive the Plaintiff its
use.<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Recovery of possession of the said
space or plot or any store built on the said plot No 12.<o:p></o:p>c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Damages for trespass.<o:p></o:p>d.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Perpetual injunction.<o:p></o:p>In
his Statement of Defence the 1st Respondent denied that the authorities of the
school allocated space on portions of the school grounds for the Plaintiff and
other persons to build permanent structures thereon. He contended that the site
was lawfully leased by the Government of Ghana to a limited liability company
called Gabbat Company Ltd. While denying the assertions regarding the Appellant
and others having been allocated space on the school grounds to construct
permanent structures, he admitted an agreement for the payment of Gh¢900 for
the construction of the stores and said that Gh¢900 was the initial rent
advance to Gabbat Co Ltd. He also admitted that the<o:p></o:p>Appellant
had paid 400 GHC and said that was for ‘defrayment of cost of construction of
the store’. <o:p></o:p>It
was his case that after failing for almost one year to get the Appellant to pay
the balance of 500 GHC, Gabbat Company had to fall on other prospective tenants
to complete the stores. The company therefore offered the Appellant an
alternative store which Appellant refused. He described the Appellant’s acts of
protests against the ‘re-allocation’ of the store he was laying claim to as
‘unlawful’ and averred that the Appellant ‘has no title to or interest in the
site on which stands the store complex as the same invested (sic) in Gabbat
Company Limited according to law’<o:p></o:p>In
June 2000, the Appellant applied for an injunction restraining the 1st
Respondent and all claiming through him from ‘further dealings with the Store
No 11’ that he was laying claim to in this suit. It was </main>