TEMA METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY vs. SAMUEL KOFI DIAME [2017]DLCA4453

Date	2017-06-01
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/179/2016
Citation No.	[2017]DLCA4453

K. A. ACQUAYE J.A. (PRESIDING)

B. ACKAH-YENSU J.A (MS)

A. S. K. GYAN J.A.

EMMANUEL AVENORGBO FOR THE DEFENDANT / APPELLANT

KWAME FOSU GIEABOUR FOR THE PLAINTIFF /RESPONDENT

[2017]DLCA4453
																																						<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" >TEMA METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SAMUEL KOFI DIAME<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, 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">

SUIT NO. H1/179/2016&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:&nbsp; 1ST JUNE, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>EMMANUEL
AVENORGBO FOR THE DEFENDANT / APPELLANT <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">

KWAME FOSU GIEABOUR&nbsp;&nbsp; FOR THE PLAINTIFF /RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>K. A.
ACQUAYE J.A. (PRESIDING), B. ACKAH-YENSU J.A (MS), A. S. K. GYAN J.A.<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="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>ACQUAYE, J A:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
appeal is against the award of damages by the Tema High Court on 9th
July 2014 against the defendant/appellant for unlawfully pulling down the
plaintiff’s building.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It all began
when the plaintiff/respondent issued a writ of summons on &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20th June 2013 claiming against
the defendant/appellant special damages for the full value of the plaintiffs
building demolished by the defendant, punitive and aggravated damages for same
and perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and her agents from interfering
with the land in dispute.&nbsp; The
plaintiff’s case was that he acquired a parcel of land at Baatsona, Spintex
Road, Accra with Land Title Certificate No. TD 6792.&nbsp; He put up a building with a fence wall on the
land but on 13th June 2013 workers and officials of the defendant
entered his property and punched a wide hole in the plaintiff’s fence wall.&nbsp; The following day officials and workers of
the defendant again came to the premises with a pay-loader machine and
demolished the plaintiffs three bedroom house with a double garage and security
room.&nbsp; The plaintiff complained that this
demolition took place after he had sued the defendant and the Inspector General
of Police for an earlier demolition of the same property and whilst that suit
was still pending.&nbsp; The defendant
answered the plaintiff’s claims by testifying that the plaintiff built his
house on land earmarked for a road and without a building permit.&nbsp; The plaintiff countered the defence by
testifying that after the first demolition the defendant made him pay a penalty
for not obtaining a permit and gave him a pin code to enable him continue
putting up the building.&nbsp; According to
the plaintiff a geodetic engineering report by the defendant’s own employee
showed that the plot conforms with the area planning scheme and that it did not
fall within a road. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The trial
judge found for the plaintiff and together with the fact that the defendant
never issued any notice of her intention to demolish the property of the
plaintiff, awarded special damages of GH¢74,906.80 according to the bill of
quantities tendered by the plaintiff.&nbsp;
The trial judge also noted that even though the plaintiff “had sued the defendant and the matter was
still subjudice, defendant out of spite, ill-will and malice went unto plaintiff’s
property and demolished same with contumacious disregard of the said action in a
court of law” and awarded punitive or aggravated damages of Gh¢500,000
together with costs of Gh¢25,000.00 against the defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Dissatisfied
with the judgment the defendant appealed listing the following grounds of
appeal:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The judgment was
against the weight of evidence adduced before the learned trial judge.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The learned
trial judge erred in law in holding that exhibit C constitutes unassailable
representation to the plaintiff to continue with the construction of his
property.<o:p></o:p></main>