NANA KWAMINA AHINKOFI IV vs. GHANA GRID COMPANY LTD [2022]DLHC11642

Date	2022-07-25
Suit No.	SUIT NO: E1/98/20
Citation No.	[2022]DLHC11642

HIS LORDSHIP DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE J.

NANA KONDUA ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF

LOM NUKU AHLIJAH ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2022]DLHC11642
																																						<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" >NANA
KWAMINA AHINKOFI IV<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA GRID COMPANY LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<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;">

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>NANA KONDUA ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF<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:150%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">LOM NUKU AHLIJAH ESQ. FOR
THE DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE J.<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;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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;The
Plaintiff commenced this action on July 20, 2020 when he caused a Writ of
Summons and Statement of Claim to be issued against the Defendant to claim the
following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An
order directing the Defendant to pay compensation for 6.07 acres of land
belonging to Ahinkofi Stool land situate at North Ahinkofi Diabenekrom
Kansawurado Planning Scheme on which the Defendant had built its Takoradi
Substation but failed to pay the needed compensation to the Plaintiff despite
several demands by the Plaintiff for the said compensation.<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Punitive Costs against the Defendant.<o:p></o:p>The
Defendant entered conditional appearance on July 30, 2020 and filed an
application to strike out the writ of summons and statement of claim. The
Plaintiff opposed the application by way of affidavit in opposition dated
August 19, 2020. The court differently constituted dismissed the application
and ordered the Defendant to file its defence.<o:p></o:p>The
Defendant subsequently filed a statement of defence dated October 8, 2020 and
the Plaintiff filed a reply dated November 18, 2020.<o:p></o:p>At
the Application for Direction stage the following issues were set down for
trial:<o:p></o:p>a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
or not the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation is a Constitutional right?<o:p></o:p>b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
or not the Constitutional right of the Plaintiff could be barred by Statutes of
Limitation Act, 1972?<o:p></o:p>c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
or not the Plaintiff Stool land which was acquired by the state compensation
has been paid since the said acquisition?<o:p></o:p>d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled
to his Claim?<o:p></o:p>e)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Any other issues arising out of the
pleadings.<o:p></o:p>Plaintiff’s Case<o:p></o:p>Plaintiff
is saying that he is the Chief of Ahinkofi and the allodial owner of the
Ahinkofi Stool land. Plaintiff’s case is that the Volta River Authority (VRA) acquired
6.07 acres of Ahinkofi Stool land in 1963 for the construction of a substation
which said land was subsequently transferred to the Defendant. That the Takoradi
substation has been built on the said land. It is Plaintiff’s case that the state
ought to pay compensation to the stool for the land which had been acquired but
failed to do so. Plaintiff states that from 1963 up to date, the Ahinkofi Stool
has been demanding payment of compensation from the VRA and from the Defendant
(after the transfer of the land to the Defendant) but all efforts have proved
futile.<o:p></o:p>Defendant’s Case<o:p></o:p>Defendant’s
case is simply that it has through its predecessor, VRA, paid all persons who
were entitled to be paid compensation and the Plaintiff, if was entitled to be
paid any compensation should have adhered to the rules of the Statute from
which it was making those alleged claims. Defendant insists that Plaintiff’s
claim is statute barred since it took over five decades for the claim to be
made.<o:p></o:p>TACKLING ISSUES<o:p></o:p>I
shall now proceed to resolve the issues which have been set down for trial. In
the analysis, the court would consider the evidence on record and the written
addresses of counsel for the parties. The issues shall be tackled seriatim.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Whether or not the Plaintiff’s claim for
compensation is a Constitutional right<o:p></o:p>