NII TETTEY OPREMEREH II AND NII ADAM SORSEY vs. KOMEXA LIMITED AND 4 OTHERS [2021]DLSC9998

Date	2021-02-17
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J8/47/2021
Citation No.	[2021]DLSC9998

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC

AMADU JSC

PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC

KULENDI JSC

CARLIS APPIAH BRAKO FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT WITH HIM IS ROBERTA INCOOM.

OFORI ADUENI FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/REPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS.

KWAME FOSU GYEABOUR FOR THE 4TH & 5TH DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

[2021]DLSC9998
																																						<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 TETTEY OPREMEREH II AND NII ADAM
SORSEY<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KOMEXA LIMITED AND 4 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CIVIL
MOTION NO. J8/47/2021&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 17TH FEBRUARY, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>CARLIS APPIAH BRAKO FOR THE 2ND
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT WITH HIM IS ROBERTA INCOOM.<o:p></o:p>OFORI ADUENI FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/REPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">KWAME FOSU GYEABOUR FOR THE 4TH &amp; 5TH
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING), DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC, AMADU JSC, PROF. MENSA-BONSU
(MRS.) JSC, KULENDI JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;DORDZIE
(MRS.) JSC:-<o:p></o:p>BACKGROUND<o:p></o:p>The Plaintiffs/Respondents in this application instituted
an action in the High Court, Lands Division Accra against the named Defendants
in the title of this case in respect of some parcels of land situate at East
Legon. &nbsp;The subject parcels of land form
part of a track of land the State compulsorily acquired in 1944. The 4th
&amp; 5th Defendants/Respondents had maintained that by a judgment
of the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast dated 28th February 1947,
they were to receive eight thousand five hundred and forty Pounds (8,540) as compensation
for the compulsory acquisition, however, the state failed to pay them. They
therefore put up a counter claim seeking the following reliefs: <o:p></o:p>a) A declaration that the La Stool is the original
allodial owner of the land in dispute and the 5th Defendant family
is the original usufructuary owner of the land in dispute. <o:p></o:p>b) An order that the government pays the 4th
and 5th Defendants/Respondents compensation on the land in dispute
with interest from the day of acquisition to the date of final payment. <o:p></o:p>c) Perpetual injunction restraining the Plaintiffs/Respondents
their families, assigns, agents, servants, or any person or bodies claiming
through them from further development or interference with the land in dispute.<o:p></o:p>The trial High Court in its judgment dated 22nd
February 2017 dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims but granted the 4th
and 5th Respondents’ counter-claim ordering the Applicant herein to pay the 4th
and 5th Respondents the compensation adjudged by the Supreme Court
of the Gold Coast plus interest at the prevailing bank rate at simple interest
from the day of the acquisition to the date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>The applicant dissatisfied with this decision
appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal in its majority decision
dismissed the appeal; it however found the High Court’s order for payment of
compensation to the 4th and 5th Respondents, (in its
words) ‘unreasonable and unjustifiable’. It therefore substituted the High Court’s
orders with the following consequential orders: “ consequently since the leases granted by the appellant are for both
residential and commercial purposes, we hold that all remaining undeveloped
parcels of land and those being occupied or developed&nbsp; by the 3rd and 4th Respondents,
(that is the 4th and 5th Respondents in this application)
their subjects, agents, privies or grantees for similar purposes, which fall
within the area of the 3rd and 4th respondents’ interest
(as properly delineated in the site plan Exhibit 4D5 at page 188 of volume 3 of
the record of appeal) be insulated from any control or interference(s)
whatsoever by the appellant. To give effect to this direction and in the
exercise of our power pursuant to Rule 32 of the Court of Appeal Rules C.I. 19
(as amended) we hereby order a perpetual injunction against the appellant
restraining it from any interference with those parcels of land falling within
the area verified by exhibit 4D5 aforementioned.” <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Applicant
herein has appealed against the above decision of the Court of Appeal to this
court. In this application the applicant, the Lands Commission is praying for
an order staying the execution of the orders of the Court of Appeal pending the
hearing of the appeal before this Court.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;