FELICIA ABBAN vs. AGYEMAN SARPONG & 2 ORS [2023]DLHC16351

Date	2023-01-31
Suit No.	SUIT NO. LD/1126/2020
Citation No.	[2023]DLHC16351

HIS LORDSHIP K. A. GYIMAH.

JAMES KWABENA BOAKYE WITH FRANK KWADWO ANSAH FOR EMMANUEL KOFI DARKO FOR PLAINTIFF.

KWADWO ADDEAH SARFO FOR DEFENDANTS.

[2023]DLHC16351
																																						<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" >FELICIA ABBAN <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AGYEMAN SARPONG &amp; 2 ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
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;">

SUIT NO. LD/1126/2020&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:
31ST&nbsp;JANUARY 2023<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>JAMES
KWABENA BOAKYE WITH FRANK KWADWO ANSAH FOR EMMANUEL KOFI DARKO FOR 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;">

</div>CORAM<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>&nbsp;<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;">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;Introduction<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This case revolves around two main
people namely Isaac Abban, the husband of the plaintiff and Agyeman Sarpong,
the 1st defendant in this suit. It is rather unfortunate that Isaac
Abban died before this action was instituted and Agyeman Sarpong also died
shortly after this action was instituted and he was substituted by his wife
Mavis Boamah. Most of the transactions involving the land in dispute in this
case were however between the said deceased persons. They are all unfortunately
not alive to tell their sides of the story so the court will have to rely on
the evidence of other people who either witnessed the supposed transactions
between the deceased or were privies to agreements and discussions between
them. All such pieces of evidence must however be duly evaluated bearing in
mind the rules and principles of evidence. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Plaintiff’s
case<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The plaintiff describes herself as a
retired nurse but ordinarily resident in the United States of America (USA). It
is the plaintiff’s case that in February 1989, she acquired a parcel of land
which included the land in dispute from one Samuel Kofi Donkor. There was a
building on a portion of the land, popularly referred to as ‘boys’ quarters’.
She however caused the documentation on the land to be made in the joint names
of her deceased husband and herself. Immediately after acquiring the property,
the plaintiff and her deceased husband took possession of the said building on
the land.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the plaintiff’s case that her
deceased husband and the deceased 1st defendant later decided to
start a business of importing light bulbs from Germany to Ghana for onward sale
to the public. In pursuance of the said business idea, her deceased husband and
the deceased 1st defendant decided to construct a temporary
warehouse on the undeveloped portion of the land until such a time that the
plaintiff was ready to develop the place into a residential apartment for the
use of her family. The plaintiff asserts that she left for the USA before the
construction of the warehouse began and her deceased husband also joined her
shortly after the construction began but her deceased husband left the deceased
1st defendant in charge of the construction.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the plaintiff’s case that she and
her deceased husband sojourned in the USA for a number of years but her
deceased husband later became seriously sick and thus she and her deceased
husband had to come back to Ghana in order to allow her husband seek further
medical attention in Ghana. Upon their return to Ghana, they found to their
surprise that the deceased 1st defendant had converted the upper
floor of the warehouse into a dwelling house. The plaintiff further asserts
that her son Isaac Kwadwo Abban, who is also resident in the USA later came to
Ghana and when he saw the activities of the deceased 1st defendant
on the land, he confronted his father about it and the father, plaintiff’s
deceased husband, informed the son that he had entered into an agreement with
the deceased 1st defendant for the construction of a temporary
warehouse and therefore the construction of a dwelling place on top of the
warehouse was without his consent and contrary to the agreement he had reached
with the deceased 1st defendant.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the plaintiff’s case that Isaac Kwadwo
Abban organised a meeting together with his deceased father and the deceased 1st
defendant about the issue and at that meeting, the deceased 1st
defendant admitted that he had no proprietary interest in the land and </main>