SINO-AFRICA DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD vs. LYDIA MENSAH [2017]DLCA5297

Date	2017-11-09
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/115/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLCA5297

KUSI-APPIAH J.A. (PRESIDING)

ADUAMA-OSEI J.A

AGYEMANG (MRS) JA

STEPHEN S. CHARWAY FOR DEFENDANT / APPELLANT

MR. SALLAS OSABUTEY FOR PLAINTIFF / RESPONDENT

[2017]DLCA5297
																																						<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" >SINO-AFRICA DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>LYDIA MENSAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<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">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO. H1/115/2017&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 9TH
NOVEMBER, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>STEPHEN
S. CHARWAY FOR 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">

</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">

KUSI-APPIAH
J.A. (PRESIDING), ADUAMA-OSEI J.A, AGYEMANG (MRS) JA <o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>AGYEMANG
JA:<o:p></o:p>In this interlocutory appeal against the ruling of
the High Court, Land Division Tema, delivered on 19th December 2017,
the defendant/appellant seeks a setting aside of the said ruling, and a further
order joining the three clan heads of Appollonia as second, third and fourth defendants.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff sued out a writ of summons against
the defendant/appellant at the court below seeking interalia, a declaration of
title to “all that piece or parcel of land …which pieces of land total 103.68
acres”, a declaration that the defendant has trespassed onto a large portion thereof,
and an order for recovery of possession of the said land. In the accompanying statement
of claim, the plaintiff pleaded that it had on 27th January 2014, acquired
the said parcel of land as the assignee of the unexpired term of a lease for a
term of ninety-nine years held by a real estate company: Delimawue Company Limited
(referred to hereafter as “Delimawue”).The said lease had been acquired by
Delimawue from the Appollonia stool on 11th November 2008 with the
consent and concurrence of the principal elders of the stool, as well as the
Paramount Chief of Kpone: Nii Tetteh Otu, the occupant of the Kpone Paramount
Stool. The said Stool allegedly held a Land Title Certificate over Kpone Lands which
allegedly included Appollonia Lands, and had to give its consent and
concurrence to the alienation of land within the Kpone Traditional Area.<o:p></o:p>It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant
which had acquired a parcel of land measuring 1000.36 acres more or less from
‘some elders of Apollonia’ had gone beyond the land alienated to it, trespassed
on a large portion of the plaintiff’s land and had started fencing same. It was
the plaintiff’s further pleading that the Secretary to the Appollonia Stool had
on behalf of the Regent and entire stool acknowledged an error in survey work
which had resulted in the defendant’s trespass, and had apologized for it.<o:p></o:p>In its pleading, the defendant which denied that it
had trespassed onto the plaintiff’s land, alleged that it had acquired&nbsp; large tract of land measuring 1000.30 acres which
was stool land from the lawful heads of the three ruling families of Appollonia:
Bediako We, Sanshie We, and Kojo We, who together with the Chief of Appollonia
were the lawful grantors of Appollonia Stool Land(as confirmed by letter from
the Lands Commission) and that the defendant had in its possession a lease
dated 15th September 2010 duly plotted by the Lands Commission.<o:p></o:p>At the close of pleadings and after directions were
given for the conduct of the trial, the defendant applied for the joinder of
the said heads of Bediako We, Sanshie We, and Kojo We. In the supporting affidavit,
it was deposed on behalf of the defendant/applicant that the presence of the three
was necessary for them to defend their interest in and capacity to grant the
land in dispute to the defendant and in that regard, that their presence was
necessary for the effectual and complete determination of the suit.<o:p></o:p>The application which was strongly opposed by the
plaintiff, was dismissed by the trial court which held inter alia, that the
said persons ought to have been notified but were not, and in any case did not need
to be </main>