NATHANIEL A. BADDOO & 3 OTHERS vs. MRS MERCY AMPOFO & RUDOLPH PAPA II AMPOFO AND LINDA NSIAH ABABIO [2018]DLCA5479

NATHANIEL A. BADDOO & 3 OTHERS vs. MRS MERCY AMPOFO & RUDOLPH PAPA II AMPOFO A... [2018]DLCA5479

Date	2018-04-16
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/58/2017
Citation No.	[2018]DLCA5479

ADUAMA OSEI JA (PRESIDING)

SENYO DZAMEFE JA

WELBOURNE (MRS.) JA

FRANK NARTEY FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS

EDWIN NYAMAA POKU FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

YAW BOAFO

HENRY ASANTE AND FRANCISCA AYIVOR WITH HIM FOR 3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.

[2018]DLCA5479
																																						<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" >NATHANIEL A. BADDOO &amp; 3 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MRS MERCY AMPOFO &amp; RUDOLPH PAPA
II AMPOFO (DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS) AND LINDA NSIAH
ABABIO (3RD
DEFENDANT/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">

SUIT NO. H1/58/2017&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;16TH APRIL, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>FRANK NARTEY FOR
PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS<o:p></o:p>EDWIN NYAMAA POKU 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">

YAW
BOAFO, HENRY ASANTE AND FRANCISCA AYIVOR WITH HIM FOR 3RD
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>ADUAMA
OSEI JA (PRESIDING), SENYO 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>In
this judgment, the Plaintiffs/Appellants are referred to as “the Plaintiffs”, the 1st
and 2nd Defendants/Appellants are referred to as “the 1st Defendant” and “the 2nd Defendant”
respectively, and the 3rd Defendant/Respondent is referred to as “the 3rd Defendant”. Also,
Plot Nos. 4 and 5, Block II, Bompata, Roman Hill, Kumasi, are together referred
to as “the property in issue”. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
judgment is delivered in 2 appeals which are from a judgment of the High Court,
Kumasi, dated the 24th of February, 2016. In the said judgment, the
High Court declared in favour of the Plaintiffs that the property in issue
formed part of the estate of Rudolph Numo-Baddoo, but declared against them
that a portion of the property had become subject to a proprietary interest
created in favour of the 3rd Defendant. The High Court also held the
Plaintiffs and their family bound by the terms of an agreement between the 1st
Defendant on behalf of the Numo-Baddoo family and the 3rd Defendant,
and accordingly restrained the Plaintiffs from interfering with the interest of
the 3rd Defendant in the buildings constructed by her on the property
in issue, and from interfering with the quiet enjoyment of the tenants in the
buildings. The High Court also rejected the claim of the 1st and 2nd
Defendants that the building they had erected in front of Plot No. 4, which is
a constituent part of the property in issue, was their property or had been
validly gifted to them.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Plaintiffs are grandchildren of the late Rudolph Numo-Baddoo, who died on the 5th
of April, 1946. The 2nd Defendant is also a grandchild of the late
Rudolph Numo-Baddoo, and the 1st Defendant is the wife of the 2nd
Defendant. The 3rd Defendant is said to have proprietary interest in
the property in issue by virtue of an agreement entered into between her and
the 1st Defendant, acting on behalf of the Numo-Baddoo family for the
development of the said property. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
facts that gave rise to the dispute in which the trial Court gave its judgment
of 24th February, 2016 are that in his lifetime, the late Rudolph
Numo-Baddoo acquired a lease in respect of the property in issue and developed
portions thereof. After the death of the late Rudolph Numo-Baddoo, his wife,
Mercy Emelia Baddoo was on the14th of July, 1948, granted letters of
administration in respect of his estate. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mercy
Emelia Baddoo died on the 8th of March, 1974, and while the Plaintiffs
say in their pleadings that at the date of her death, she had not administered the
property in issue and that following her death two successive heads of the
Rudolph Numo-Baddoo family had put the 1st and 2nd
Defendants in charge of the management of the said plots, the1st and 2nd
Defendants allege in separate statements of defence that Mercy Emelia Baddoo had
given the property in issue to the children of Rudolph Numo-Baddoo, who had
subsequently given the said property to them to be developed. According to the 1st
and 2nd Defendants, in giving the property in issue to them to be
developed, the children of the late Numo-Baddoo had provided them with no funds
for the purpose.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
1st and 2nd Defendants allege in their separate statements
of defence that pursuant to a power of attorney dated 23rd December,
1991, give</main>