NII BORLABI-DIN BORKETEY NKPA AND NII BORKETEY AGBUNTSO KAKRAKU GBOGNEE IV vs. TRASACCO ESTATES DEV. CO. LTD. AND TEMA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY [2023]DLHC16429

NII BORLABI-DIN BORKETEY NKPA AND NII BORKETEY AGBUNTSO KAKRAKU GBOGNEE IV vs.... [2023]DLHC16429

Date	2023-05-31
Suit No.	SUIT NO. LD/0059/2015
Citation No.	[2023]DLHC16429

HIS LORDSHIP K. A. GYIMAH

TSATSU TSIKATA WITH DOE TSIKATA FOR PLAINTIFFS/ APPLICANTS.

ERNEST KUSI WITH CHARLES OKYERE KWAPONG FOR 1ST DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT.

OPOKU-WARE BOATENG FOR 2ND DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT.

[2023]DLHC16429
																																						<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 BORLABI-DIN BORKETEY NKPA AND NII BORKETEY AGBUNTSO KAKRAKU GBOGNEE
IV <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TRASACCO ESTATES DEV. CO.
LTD. AND TEMA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<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/0059/2015&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:
31ST&nbsp;MAY 2023<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>TSATSU
TSIKATA WITH DOE TSIKATA FOR PLAINTIFFS/ APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p>ERNEST
KUSI WITH CHARLES OKYERE KWAPONG FOR 1ST DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT.<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;">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>Summary
of plaintiffs’ application and arguments before the court<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This is an application that has been
brought by the plaintiffs praying the court for leave to amend the writ of
summons and statement of claim by the amendment of relief (a) and the addition
of some new reliefs to the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons, the
amendment of some paragraphs of the statement of claim and the addition of two
new paragraphs namely paragraphs 23A and 23B to the statement of claim. The new
reliefs the plaintiffs seek to add to the endorsement on the writ of summons
are as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“(aa) A declaration that the public
purposes for which land was compulsorily acquired by the Government of the Gold
Coast under the Tema Town and Port (Acquisition of Land) Ordinance, 1952
expressed in the title of the Ordinance as ‘developing a new town and port at
Tema and for purposes connected therewith’ did not extend to the purported
lease of land by 2nd defendant to 1st defendant by way of
barter;<o:p></o:p>(ab) The Nii Tetteh Santeo family is
entitled, by virtue of and in terms of Article 20(6) of the 1992 Constitution,
to the first option for re-acquiring the land leased by 2nd
defendant to 1st defendant by way of barter once it was no longer
being used in the public interest for which it was compulsorily acquired and
for the public purpose for which it was acquired;<o:p></o:p>(ac) An order in the nature of a
mandatory injunction for the enforcement of the fundamental right of Nii Tetteh
Santeo family to the land by virtue of Article 20(6) of the 1992 Constitution.<o:p></o:p>(da) An order for the 1st
defendant to render accounts of all monies received by 1st defendant
for offers it has made of portions of the land purportedly leased by 2nd
defendant to 1st defendant.”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In moving his application before the
court, counsel for the plaintiffs argued that per the rules of court, the court
may grant leave to a party to amend the party’s pleadings and it is irrelevant
if there had been earlier amendments of the process sought to be amended.
Counsel further argued that the amendment sought will not in any way change the
plaintiffs’ case before the court, neither will it surprise the defendants as
the plaintiffs have always maintained that the 361 acres of land that the 2nd
defendant apparently exchanged on a barter with the 1st defendant
belongs to the plaintiffs as the allodial owners and all the matters raised in
the present application for amendment already form part of the record of the
court.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Counsel further argued that the
amendment sought, if granted, will avoid multiplicity of suits as all issues
between the parties would have been effectively adjudicated upon. He further
argued that the defendants will also have the opportunity to respond to all the
issues raised by the plaintiffs and the defendants will therefore not be
prejudiced if the amendment is granted. He further argued that with the
disputed area of land before the court being 361 acres as agreed by all the
parties, the mention of 9,737 acres or 10,000 acres will not really affect the
issues in controversy between the parties. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp</main>