NII KPOBI TETTEY TSURU III vs. MAJOR SEIDU MUSAH (RTD) AND LANDS COMMISSION [2019]DLHC9136

Date	2019-01-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO. SOL/4/11
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC9136

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE BARBARA TETTEH-CHARWAY (MRS)

KWAME FOSU GYEABOUR FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

DELA BLAGOGEE (WITH HIM PHOEBE MAWUENA ARYEETEY) FOR DFENDANT/ RESPONDENT

[2019]DLHC9136
																																						<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 KPOBI TETTEY TSURU III<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MAJOR SEIDU MUSAH (RTD)
AND LANDS COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (LAND DIVISION), ACCRA]<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">

SUIT
NO. SOL/4/11&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 17TH JANUARY,
2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWAME FOSU GYEABOUR FOR
PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT&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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

DELA
BLAGOGEE (WITH HIM PHOEBE MAWUENA ARYEETEY) FOR DFENDANT/ 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">

HER
LADYSHIP JUSTICE BARBARA TETTEH-CHARWAY (MRS)<o:p></o:p>

</div><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">

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before me is a motion on notice to
amend the Plaintiff’s statement of claim. In the accompanying affidavit in
support deposed to by one Victor Cudjoe, the deponent averred that he had the
authority of the Plaintiff/Applicant to depose to the contents of the affidavit
in support. He further averred that some relevant information and occurrences
which are material to the case had come to the knowledge of the Plaintiff/Applicant
which necessitated the amendment sought. He stated that by the intended
amendment the Plaintiff/Applicant was seeking among others to delete relief (a)
and insert a new relief to read as follows; “a declaration that the La Stool
and its subjects are licensees in possession of the land being claimed by the Defendant.”
Additionally, the Plaintiff/Applicant intended to add new paragraphs to its
statement of claim. The said paragraphs were stated in the affidavit in
support. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel for the 1st Defendant
/Respondent filed an affidavit in opposition to the motion to amend the Plaintiff’s
writ and statement of claim. In the said affidavit in opposition, the deponent
averred that the grant of the instant application would occasion further delay
in the adjudication of this suit and serious injustice would be caused to the 1st
Defendant/ Respondent as a result. He further stated that the proposed amendment
would have the effect of changing the capacity in which the Plaintiff/
Applicant commenced this action, as well as, his cause of action. He urged the Court
to exercise its discretion judicially bearing in mind the fact that the Plaintiff/Applicant
had admitted that he was not the owner of the land in dispute, the fact that
the Lands Commission had confirmed giving the land to the 1st Defendant/
Respondent and the fact that a land owner is not precluded from making a grant
if he has granted a license on the land. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his submissions in support of the
application for amendment, counsel for the Plaintiff/ Applicant stated that the
amendment, if granted would lead to the just and effective adjudication of all
matters in the suit. He further stated that the Rules of Court allow the Court
to award costs as compensation for any delay occasioned by an amendment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel for the Defendant, on the other
hand, opposed the application forcefully. He argued that by the instant
application, the Plaintiff /Applicant was seeking to change the nature of his case
entirely and to change the capacity in which he commenced the instant suit. He
further argued that the grant of the amendment would occasion undue delay given
that it was the 1st Defendant/ Respondent who filed application for
directions when the Plaintiff failed to do so.&nbsp;
He further maintained that the new relief sought by the Plaintiff/Applicant
did not disclose any cause of action because a licensee does not have a
proprietary interest in land to enable it maintain an action against someone to
whom his licensor has given a grant. He stated that being a licensee, the Plaintiff/
Applicant could not sue a 3rd party. He therefore urged the Court to
dismiss the application for amendment of the Plaintiff’s writ of summons and
statement of claim.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Applications for amendment of pleadings
are gove</main>