CYRIL MAINOO AND CYMAIN GHANA LIMITED vs. AMA ATAA & 4 ORS [2022]DLSC16108

Date	2022-11-30
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/27/2022
Citation No.	[2022]DLSC16108

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

AMEGATCHER JSC

OWUSU (MS.) JSC

TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC

PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC

DAVID BOAFO ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANTS

THOMAS N. WARD-BREW ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS.

[2022]DLSC16108
																																						<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" >CYRIL
MAINOO AND CYMAIN GHANA LIMITED <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/
APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p><a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>AMA
ATAA &amp; 4 ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFEENDANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS)
<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;">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/27/2022&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:
30TH NOVEMBER 2022&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL <o:p></o:p>DAVID
BOAFO ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANTS.<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; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: -13.95pt;">

THOMAS N. WARD-BREW ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING),
AMEGATCHER JSC, OWUSU (MS.) JSC, TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC, PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.)
JSC <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;text-align:center;
line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid black 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;DOTSE
JSC:- On the 30th
day of November 2022, this court by a unanimous decision allowed the appeal by
the Plaintiffs/Respondents/Appellants hereafter referred to as Plaintiffs,
against the Court of Appeal judgment dated 30th July 2020 which was
in favour of Defendants/Appellants/Respondents hereafter, Defendants.<o:p></o:p>In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal judgment
of even date was set aside, and the judgment of the High Court dated 19th
day of October, 2018 was restored.<o:p></o:p>We now proceed to give the reasons for our
decision of the 30th November 2022.<o:p></o:p>Daniel Webster, a prolific American writer and
commentator in his address to the Massachusetts Convention in 1820 stated as
follows:-<o:p></o:p>“It would seem, then, to be part of political wisdom to found government on property; and to establish such distribution of property,
by the laws which regulate its transmission and alienation, as to interest the
great majority of society in the protection of government.” Emphasis <o:p></o:p>See “The
Quotable Founding Fathers” Edited by Buckner F. Melton Jr, page 286.<o:p></o:p>We find the above quotation appropriate because,
Opanin Kwame Poku, the original owner of House Number 24, North Labone Housing
Estate, Accra, had the presence of mind to take advantage of the Laws to
establish the distribution and alienation of the said property to his forty
five (45) children. However, the lack of clarity and understanding which
underpinned the said process led to the chaos, confusion and anarchy which
engulfed the said House number 24, North Labone Estate which is the subject
property germane to the appeal herein. <o:p></o:p>We are of the considered opinion that, if the
principle of “Understanding” had
underpinned the conduct of all the principal actors in this case, the matters
would have been resolved without resort to the law courts.<o:p></o:p>WHAT
THEN ARE THE FACTS OF THIS CASE<o:p></o:p>We proceed to set out the facts of the case, first
as stated from the Plaintiffs perspective.<o:p></o:p>Plaintiff
purchased the disputed house from some of the children of Opanin Kwame Poku who
originally owned the house in 2003 after representatives of the children had
agreed to sell same at a negotiated price of 1.15 billion old cedis. After the
initial payment, (receipt of which is in
evidence as exhibit A), they took immediate possession of the property and
made a final payment in July of the same year. See exhibit B. Thereafter
plaintiffs were provided with an Indenture which is in evidence as exhibit C.
Plaintiffs averred that soon after taking possession, they did extensive
renovation works on the property without any interference. The works included
changing the roof and windows, demolishing the outhouse, rebuilding the septic
tanks etc. The business of 2nd plaintiff was also relocated to the
building, and operated therefrom for seven years without any interference.
Plaintiffs averred that there was no pending suit between the children of
Opanin Kwame Poku at the time of the sale and neither were they made aware of
any pending suit between the children over the said property. Plaintiffs
further contend that no injunctive order was served on them restraining them from
using the disputed property and neither were they joined as parties</main>