SOCIAL SECURITY AND NATIONAL INSURANCE TRUST (SSNIT) vs. ABOTARE YE CHOP BAR, KUMASI [2018]DLCA5223

SOCIAL SECURITY AND NATIONAL INSURANCE TRUST (SSNIT) vs. ABOTARE YE CHOP BAR, KU... [2018]DLCA5223

Date	2018-01-22
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/10/2013
Citation No.	[2018]DLCA5223

ADUAMA OSEI JA (PRESIDING)

DZAMEFE JA

WELBOURNE (MRS) JA

BAFFOUR AKOTO FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

NANA KWASI BOATEY ANIS AWUAH DANSO AND AKUA AFRIYIE

BOAKYEWAA WITH HIM FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.

[2018]DLCA5223
																																						<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" >SOCIAL SECURITY AND NATIONAL
INSURANCE TRUST (SSNIT)<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ABOTARE YE CHOP BAR, KUMASI<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION), KUMASI]<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. H1/10/2013&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 22ND JANUARY,
2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>BAFFOUR AKOTO FOR
PLAINTIFF/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">

NANA
KWASI BOATEY, ANIS AWUAH DANSO AND AKUA AFRIYIE BOAKYEWAA WITH HIM FOR
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>ADUAMA
OSEI JA (PRESIDING), DZAMEFE JA, WELBOURNE (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 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>ADUAMA OSEI JA:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
suit which is the subject matter of this appeal, was initially instituted
against “Abotare Ye Fitters Association Per
its Chairman”, and “Unidentified
Trespassers On Land”, as 1st and 2nd Defendants
respectively. Subsequently, “Abotare Ye
Chop Bar Proprietress” entered appearance as 2nd Defendant, and
this was followed by the discontinuance of the action as against the 1st
Defendant and the amendment of the writ of summons by substituting “Unidentified Trespassers On Land” with
“Abotare Ye Chop Bar Proprietress”.
The action in the court below was therefore between Social Security and
National Insurance Trust as Plaintiff, and Abotare Ye Chop Bar Proprietress, as
Defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
this judgment, Social Security and National Insurance Trust is referred to as “the Appellant”, and Abotare Ye Chop Bar Proprietress is referred to as “the Respondent”. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
the statement of claim that accompanied its writ of summons, the Appellant
asserted ownership of Property No. 103, situate at O.T.A. – Adum in Kumasi,
which it claimed to have acquired from Universal Travel and Tourist Services
(Ghana) Limited under a deed of assignment which, as it stated, had received
the consent of the Lands Commission. The Appellant alleged that since it
acquired the property, it had exercised ownership and proprietary rights over
it and regularly paid ground rent on the same.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
indorsement on the writ of summons, as amended, described the property as “bounded on the East by the road leading to
offices of Department of Urban Roads, on the West by an untarred road along
Sunshine Commodities Limited’s building, on the South by the fence walls of
Department of Urban Roads and KMA Waste Management Department and the said GNTC
Warehouse”. And in the statement of claim, the Appellant complained that even
though, for the purpose of executing its plan for the development of the land,
it had made several demands for the persons occupying it to vacate same, those
persons appeared reluctant to comply and it needed an order from the Court to
compel their eviction.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
her part, the Respondent contended in her statement of defence that the land
under her occupation did not form part of the land allegedly assigned to the
Appellant. According to the Respondent, she had been in occupation and
possession of the land, on which she had been operating a “chop bar”, long before the Appellant took its assignment. She
alleged that even though the Appellant had been aware of her occupation of the
land, the Appellant had never confronted her in respect thereof. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>She
contended that to the extent that the land under her occupation did not form
part of the land assigned to the Appellant, she could not be considered a
trespasser on the Appellant’s land and she described the Appellant’s action
against her as frivolous, vexatious, and without any legal basis.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
issues set down for determination in the court below which concerned the
Respondent were whether or not the Respondent’s land formed part of the
Appellant’s land at O.T.A, Adum, and whether or not the Appellant was entitled
to the reliefs it was seeking.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
its judgment delivered on the 15th of March, 2010, the trial Court
determined that the area occupied by the Respondent did not form part of the
Appellant’s land and it accordingly dismissed the action. This appeal has been
filed because the Appellant is d</main>