SWISS WATCH COMPANY LIMITED vs. ANNIE LARNYO ARYITEY (SUBSTITUTED BY CHARLES QUIST), ELLIOT ARYITEY, EDWIN ARYITEY AND SAMUEL AMO TOBIN [2016]DLCA7988

SWISS WATCH COMPANY LIMITED vs. ANNIE LARNYO ARYITEY (SUBSTITUTED BY CHARLES QU... [2016]DLCA7988

Date	2016-04-28
Suit No.	CIVIL SUIT NO.: H1/19/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA7988

MARIAMA OWUSU (MS) JA (PRESIDING)

ACQUAYE JA

AGYEMANG (MRS.) JA

MR. TETTEH JOSIAH FOR APPELLANT

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

MR. EMMANUEL LARBI AMOAH FOR 1ST

2ND & 3RD RESPONDENT

[2016]DLCA7988
																																						<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 (SUBSTITUTED BY CHARLES QUIST), ELLIOT ARYITEY, EDWIN ARYITEY
AND SAMUEL AMO TOBIN<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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; &nbsp; DATE: 28TH
APRIL, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</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><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MR. EMMANUEL LARBI AMOAH FOR 1ST, 2ND
&amp; 3RD RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MARIAMA OWUSU (MS) JA
(PRESIDING), ACQUAYE JA, AGYEMANG (MRS.) JA<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">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>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 siblings
upon 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 side age)
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>The plaintiff then filed a Further Amended
Statement of Claim. The fourth defendant in response filed a statement of
defence and included a counterclaim for inter alia, a declaration that the
action was a sham, frivolous, and otherwise constituted an abuse of the process
of the court, and further or in the alternative, a declaration of title,
recovery of possession, special damages, mesne profits from 1st
April 2011 to date of delivery up of possession.<o:p></o:p>The fourth defendant then followed up with an
application under Order 11 Rule 18(1) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2004 CI 47
to strike out the statement of claim on the grounds that it disclosed no
reasonable cause of action</main>