MENDS METAL WORKS LTD (PLAINTIFF) vs. MR. AYITTEY AND ANOR (DEFENDANTS) [2019]DLHC7046

Date	2019-05-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO E1/74/17
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7046

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI – FRIMPONG J.

C. KUDEZDZI ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

EDMUND AKWAA ARHIN ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[2019]DLHC7046
																																						<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" >MENDS METAL WORKS LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MR. AYITTEY AND ANOR<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, SEKONDI]<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 E1/74/17&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 21ST MAY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>C.
KUDEZDZI ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

EDMUND AKWAA ARHIN ESQ. FOR THE
DEFENDANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI – FRIMPONG J.<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>This case has a chequered history
and given the matters comprised in the pleadings, it is considered material to
recount the antecedents.<o:p></o:p>A certain P.T Odonkor now deceased, for
himself and on behalf of two others, filed an action in the district court,
Sekondi against one Mr. Mends claiming inter alia, ownership of Plot No.KP 57
Kokompe No.2 Takoradi. The two whom P.T Odonkor represented in the action were
one Ayittey and Paul Noi. Ayittey is the 2nd defendant herein. The
defendant in that suit Mr. Mends indisputably, owns the company, Mends Metal
Works Ltd, the plaintiff herein.<o:p></o:p>By its judgment pronounced on 20th
January 2005, the district court declared that Plot No. 57 was the property of
P.T Odonkor and the two others he represented. The court also made an order for
recovery of possession against Mr. Mends.<o:p></o:p>Dissatisfied with the decision of
the district court, Mr. Mends appealed at the High Court, Sekondi. The High
Court quoram Robin Batu J dismissed the appeal. The judgment in the appeal was
pronounced on 6th November 2008.<o:p></o:p>A little over a month after losing
the appeal, Mr. Mends’ company, Mends Metal Works Ltd commenced an action at
the High Court against P.T Odonkor seeking a declaration of title to the same
Plot No. 57 and another Plot No. 54.<o:p></o:p>I pause to state how strange it was,
if not to repackage the suit, for Plot No. 54 to be included in that action. All
along, the bone of contention had been Plot No. 57 and there was nothing to
show that P.T Odonkor or any person for that matter had laid claim to Plot No.
54 which Mr. Mends had always occupied anyway. In any event, this High Court
action also failed and it was for the reason that Mr. Mends was essentially
hiding behind his company to re-litigate the same subject in a plain abuse of
the court’s process.<o:p></o:p>Again not satisfied with decision of
the High Court quoram Anthony Oppong J, the company appealed at the Court of
Appeal. The appeal also failed.<o:p></o:p>Now the judicial expedition of Mr. Mends
and his company about this Plot, appears never to reach Everest and so the
company is once again before this court. <o:p></o:p>From the facts available, after the
bouts of trials and appeals, the time came for the judgment of the district
court to be executed. An ex parte Application was therefore filed in that court
for leave to issue a writ of possession which was granted. In the events that
followed in effecting execution the company filed the instant suit seeking the
following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
General
damages for trespass and wrongful destruction of plaintiff’s property.<o:p></o:p>(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
General
damages for fraud.<o:p></o:p>(iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Perpetual
injunction restraining the defendants from doing anything whatsoever on the
plaintiff’s land.<o:p></o:p>Again in this action, Plot No. 54
whose ownership is not in any question has been included and I suppose it is
for the condemnable purpose I earlier pointed out.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff pleads that it is the
owner of Plots Nos. 54 and 57 having acquired same from the Shama Ahanta East
Metropolitan Assembly by a deed dated 25th July 1990. It registered
the land at the Lands Commission vide document No. WR 519/90 LVB/WR 633/90,
Land Registry No. 2806/1990. It has been in effective possession and occupation
of the land without any</main>