SWISS WATCH COMPANY LIMITED vs. ANNIE LARNYO ARYITEY AND 3 OTHERS [2016]DLCA5234

Date	2016-04-28
Suit No.	CIVIL SUIT NO.: H1/19/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA5234

MARIAMA OWUSU (MS) JA (PRESIDING)

ACQUAYE JA

AGYEMANG (MRS.) JA

MR. TETTEH JOSIAH FOR APPELLANT

S. AGO ASIEDU-ASANTE FOR THE 4TH DEFENDANT / RESPONDENT

MR. EMMANUEL LARBI AMOAH FOR 1ST

2ND & 3RD RESPONDENT

[2016]DLCA5234
																																						<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" >SWISS WATCH
COMPANY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ANNIE LARNYO ARYITEY AND 3 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION), 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">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL SUIT NO.: H1/19/2016&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;28TH
APRIL, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp; <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>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
TETTEH JOSIAH FOR APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>MS.
AGO ASIEDU-ASANTE FOR THE 4TH DEFENDANT / RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>MR.
EMMANUEL LARBI AMOAH FOR 1ST, 2ND &amp; 3RD
RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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>AGYEMANG JA:<o:p></o:p>In this appeal against the
judgment of the High Court, Accra (Human Rights Division), the
plaintiff/appellant seeks the setting aside of the ruling of that court
delivered on 30th of July 2015.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The ruling, the subject of this appeal, followed an
application by the 4th defendant for the plaintiff’s suit to be
struck out in the exercise of the court’s powers to strike out pleadings or
summarily dismiss a suit under Order 11 Rule 18(1) of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules 2004 CI 47. <o:p></o:p>The said suit was brought against the first three
defendants: a mother (now deceased) and her two sons - her lawful attorneys.
The mother: the first defendant, was the sole surviving child of the late
Reverend Samuel Saki Odonkor who acquired property described as House No. C1/3 Farrar
Avenue Sobukwe Road, Adabraka, Accra. She survived her three siblingsupon whom
the property devolved: Grace Nene Kwansa, Nathaniel Kofi Odonkor, and Peter
Philip Odonkor. Reverend Samuel Saki Odonkor leased a portion of the said
house, more particularly, the frontage (alternately described as the sideage)
of the premises to the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff, for upwards of forty
years, carried on the trade of retail and servicing of Omega watches, Tissot
watches, as well as ball pens and ancillary items thereat.<o:p></o:p>By letter of 19th August 2010, the
plaintiff was advised by the third defendant, one of the attorneys of the first
defendant, that its tenancy which was due to expire on the 31st of
March 2011 would not be renewed. The plaintiff was further advised that the
house would be put up for sale, and that he had the option of purchase of the
freehold at USD1,500,000 or to acquire a lease for fifty years at an annual
rent of USD800,000 as well as the payment of yearly ground rent of USD500,000.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff’s response to the letter was to demand
that the consent of all the descendants of the patriarch Reverend Saki Odonkor
be obtained before the sale/lease. He contended that they were co-owners of the
property. The first defendant acting by her two attorneys, then after
advertising the property for sale, entered into a sale transaction with the
fourth defendant. <o:p></o:p>The plaintiff begun the instant suit against the
first three defendants seeking: a declaration that the plaintiff was a sitting
tenant of the premises; a declaration that as such sitting tenant, the
defendants were “obliged by law and conveyancing convention” to give the
plaintiff the first option to purchase or refuse; an order to compel the
defendants to offer the plaintiff the right of first&nbsp; purchase or refusal; damages for aggravation,
and a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their privies from
entering upon the land and/or locking up the plaintiff’s shop or locking the
plaintiff out. <o:p></o:p>The defendants responded to the plaintiff’s
pleading contained in its Amended Statement of Claim, and issues were joined. Hearing
commenced thereafter when the plaintiff’s Managing Director and representative
started giving evidence. Before the plaintiff’s representative could finish
giving his evidence, however, the suit was transferred to another division of
the High Court (the Human Rights Division).<o:p></o:p>The fourth defendant applied to the court to be
joined to the suit. The application having been granted, he (to whom the
property had been sold by the second and third defendants acting as the lawful
attorneys of the first defendant), became a party to the suit.<o:p></o:p>