GEORGE LAMPTEY vs. MEKLLOYDS CO. LTD AND THEOPHILUS OHENE POKU [2017]DLCA4811

Date	2017-12-19
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO: H1/163/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLCA4811

GYAESAYOR JA

DORDZIE JA (MRS.)

AMADU JA

MR. KWAKU GYIMAH KYA FOR APPELLANT

MR. PETER KWAKU NTI FOR 2ND RESPONDENT

[2017]DLCA4811
																																						<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" >GEORGE LAMPTEY<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/
APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MEKLLOYDS CO. LTD AND
THEOPHILUS OHENE POKU<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS
/ 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">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO: H1/163/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 19TH DECEMBER,
2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. KWAKU GYIMAH KYA FOR
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">

MR.
PETER KWAKU NTI FOR 2ND RESPONDENT <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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

GYAESAYOR
JA, DORDZIE JA (MRS.), AMADU JA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</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="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>GYAESAYOR, JA<o:p></o:p>This is an
interesting appeal against the decision of the High Court Accra dated 13th
June 2016 refusing to grant leave to the plaintiff judgment creditor to amend
the final judgment. It is interesting because, the appellant is the victor in
the trial but not the defendants who lost the case in the court below.<o:p></o:p>The facts of the case are relatively simple. The plaintiff/judgment
/creditor/applicant/ appellant with the help of his employers
acquired two plots of land at Millennium City Kasoa.&nbsp; In the nature of his work he was transferred
to the Volta Region but on a visit to Accra, he went to the land and saw that 2nd
defendant had trespassed onto the land and was constructing a structure when
all attempts to stop him failed, he took the matter to court.&nbsp; According to the judgment, the 2nd
defendant claiming through the 1st defendant did not go to court
after filing appearance and did not take part in the ensuing proceedings. The
High Court therefore proceeded to hear the suit on available evidence on
record.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The issues to be
determined at the High Court as set down were as follows:<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Bookman Old Style&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Bookman Old Style&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Bookman Old Style&quot;">1.&nbsp; Whether
or not the plaintiff is the bonafide owner of Plot Nos. 80 and 82 at Kasoa
Millennium City.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span style="font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Bookman Old Style&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Bookman Old Style&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Bookman Old Style&quot;">2.&nbsp; Whether
or not Adom Spinning Company the Assignors of Plot Nos. 80 and 82 to the
Plaintiff fraudulently acquired the land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span style="font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Bookman Old Style&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Bookman Old Style&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Bookman Old Style&quot;">3.&nbsp; Any
other issue arising out of the pleading.<o:p></o:p>In the end, the trial
judge entered judgment for the plaintiff at page 10 of her judgment when she
wrote “Having determined that the plaintiff
is the owner of or has title to the land in dispute, it follows that the defendants
are not entitled to maintain their grant with respect to the said land. <o:p></o:p>An
ev</main>