NII OKWEI KINKA DOWUONA VI (PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANT) vs. THE TRUSTEES OF GHANA ASSOCIATION OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS [2019]DLCA8758

NII OKWEI KINKA DOWUONA VI (PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANT) vs. THE TRUSTEES OF GHANA AS... [2019]DLCA8758

Date	2019-05-02
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/259/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLCA8758

ADJEI J.A.

SUURBAAREH J.A.

AGBEVOR J.A.

KWAME FOSU GYEABOUR ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT

MS GOLDA DENYO ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT

[2019]DLCA8758
																																						<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" >NII OKWEI KINKA&nbsp; DOWUONA VI<o:p></o:p><w:sdtpr></w:sdtpr>(PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
 mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
 color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>THE TRUSTEES OF&nbsp; GHANA
 ASSOCIATION OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
 padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">
 SUIT NO. H1/259/2018&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 02ND &nbsp;MAY, 2019<o:p></o:p>
 </div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWAME FOSU GYEABOUR ESQ.&nbsp;
 FOR THE PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
 padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">
 MS GOLDA DENYO ESQ.
 FOR THE DEFENDANT/ 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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">
 ADJEI J.A. ,
 SUURBAAREH J.A., AGBEVOR J.A.<o:p></o:p>
 </div>&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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">
 <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
 .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:normal;mso-pagination:
 none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
 solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>
 </div>ADJEI, J.A.:<o:p></o:p>The Plaintiff/ Appellant maintained an action against the
Defendant/ Respondent at the High Court, Accra to claim ownership over a parcel
of land at Osu. After the Defendant filed his defence which was replied to by
the Plaintiff, the Defendant brought an application under Order 33 rule 5 and
the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to dismiss the suit. For the purposes of
this appeal and ease of convenience, the Plaintiff/Appellant will be referred
to as the Plaintiff and the Defendant/Respondent will be referred to as the
Defendant, that is, the parties shall maintain their respective designations at
the court below.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s action was resisted
by the Plaintiff. The High Court heard both parties and on the 10th of
November, 2017, granted the Defendant’s application on the ground that the
Plaintiff lacked capacity to maintain an action over the disputed property. The
Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the ruling dismissing his action for want of
capacity on 20th November, 2017, filed an appeal against the said ruling.<o:p></o:p>The brief facts of the case are that the Plaintiff, Osu Mantse
(chief of Osu) on behalf of himself and the Stool brought a suit against the
Defendant; a religious entity operating in Ghana, for a declaration of title to
land at Osu and a further declaration to the effect that the Defendant had no
interest in the land and was therefore entitled to damages. The Plaintiff’s
position was that the land, which was the subject matter of a deed of exchange,
dated 2nd June, 1930 and registered in the Deeds Registry as No. 540/1930
between the colonial government and its stool, was owned by its stool. Thus,
the subsequent alienation of the land to the Defendant was made without
capacity. The Defendant, however, had a different opinion and averred that an
indenture dated 2nd June, 1930 was made between the then Governor of the Gold
Coast Colony and the then Osu Mantse and Mankralo. It further averred that the
Osu Mantse, Mankralo and acting Klotey priest entered into an indenture with
Union Trading Company Limited which divested the Osu stool of its absolute
interest, that is, by creating a fee simple interest in the land to the benefit
of Union Trading Company Limited. The instrument evidencing that transaction
was duly registered at the Deeds Registry as No 78/1937 and therefore the
Plaintiff stool has not got any right to or interest in the land. Therefore,
the crux of the application before the trial High Court was whether or not the
Plaintiff has a right or interest in the land to clothe it with capacity to
institute the action which has culminated in this appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the ruling of the High
Court in which its action was dismissed for lack of capacity, filed an appeal
and lodged five grounds of appeal:<o:p></o:p>