JOE ANSAH VRS THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE CHURCH OF PENTECOST (LD/0072/2024) [2024] GHAHC 138 (11 June 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE LAND COURT HELD IN ACCRA ON TUESDAY THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU (J.) SUIT NO. LD/0072/2024 JOE ANSAH :: PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT (THROUGH HIS LAWFUL ATTORNEY LAWRENCE ACQUAH) H/NO. TA/B039, TAIFA - BURKINA – ACCRA VRS THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE CHURCH OF PENTECOST :: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT ACP BRANCH, POKUASE – ACCRA =========================================================================== PARTIES: PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT ABSENT DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT REPRESENTED BY SAVIOUR ATIVOR COUNSEL: ANGELA SASU OBENG ESQ., HOLDING BRIEF FOR KWADWO ADDEAH-SAFO ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT PRESENT KWAKU AGYEI GYAMFI ESQ., FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT PRESENT ======================================================== R U L I N G This Ruling is in respect of an Application on Notice filed by the Plaintiff (Applicant) praying this Court for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction to restrain the Defendant/Respondent, its servants, agents, assigns, privies, successors, contractors, workmen from entering, trespassing, destroying, developing and / or alienating any portion of the disputed land until the final determination of the suit. 1 RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT NO. LD/0072/2024 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ ON 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 The Application was opposed by the Respondent and a Supplementary Affidavit by the Applicant was filed, pursuant to the leave of this Court to respond to the facts raised by the Respondent. These were premised on four main grounds. 1. That the subject matter land was acquired by the Respondent from one Madam Alice Appiah in 2007. On this point, the Applicant submitted that there is no documentary evidence to sustain the claim. 2. That the Plaintiff’s grant was fraudulently made because his grantor was dead at the time the grant was made. In rebuttal, the Applicant submitted that the Deed of Assignment clearly, shows that his grantor was alive. 3. That the Applicant’s action is statute-barred. Respondent argues that such an assertion cannot be contested on an affidavit evidence. 4. That the Attorney of the Plaintiff (Lawrence Acquah) has no power of attorney to commence the suit. The Applicant attached a copy of the Power of Attorney which empowers him to initiate the action on behalf of the Plaintiff”. The Court’s view on the four issues raised are considered below: 1. On the point that the Respondent has no reasonable documentary proof to show that it acquired the subject matter land from Madam Alice Appiah in 2007, I must say that even if it were so, that alone does not absolve the Applicant from proving his interest or title in the land, especially when the Respondent had not counterclaimed. The onus largely lies on the Applicant. 2. On the point on statute-barred, I am inclined to agree with the Applicant that the manner in which it has been raised in the Respondent’s affidavit makes it practically difficult and inappropriate for the Court to consider it as a basis to refuse this Application. The two other points appear to be compelling and hold the key to resolving this Application. Fundamentally, the action herein appears to be incompetent from inception. It must be noted that, the Respondent challenged the capacity of the Attorney to commence the action. The Applicant responded to this by tendering Exhibit ‘F’ to its Supplementary Affidavit. 2 RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT NO. LD/0072/2024 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ ON 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 A careful perusal of the Power of Attorney tends to betray the Applicant. In Exhibit ‘F’, the subject matter of the property which one JOSEPH ANSAH of Accra (with no residential or occupational address) donated to LAWRENCE KOFI ACQUAH to deal with on his behalf, is his land acquired from VANDERPUYE ORGLE ESTATES at Aplaku, Pokuase. Meanwhile, in this suit the Plaintiff claims to have acquired his land from one Abeaku Appiah-Gyan who derived his interest from a Lease executed by the Dodoo Clottey Family of Pokuase. Nowhere in the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim or Affidavits filed to prosecute this Application, did he say he acquired this land from the Vanderpuye-Orgle Estates. Therefore, if Lawrence Acquah, the Attorney who initiated this suit, has any Power of Attorney at all, it may seem that it is not in respect of this suit. On the fact that the Plaintiff’s grantor passed away on 28th day of April, 2002 and could not have executed the Deed in favour of the Applicant, the Court takes cognizant of the fact that this is a serious allegation supported by documentary proof, which required the Applicant to respond to it. Unfortunately, the Applicant shied away and failed woefully, except to rely on its Deed to attempt to rebut the allegation. It is trite that, in an Application for Interlocutory Injunction, the Applicant is duty bound to prove that he has either a legal or equitable interest in the subject matter property which the Court must protect (See OWUSU VRS OWUSU ANSAH AND ANOR [2007–08] SCGLR 870, ANAMAN VRS OSEI TUTU [1976] 1 GLR 111 AND NATIONAL LOTTERY AUTHORITY VRS AIRTEL [2011] 36 GMJ 190. It is also of paramount importance that, in such Applications, the identity of the land is clearly described so that the Respondents will be able to know the exact land they are prohibited from entering or trespassing upon. I notice that, this hurdle appeared not to have been cleared. While the Plaintiff in his Statement of Claim describes the 0.17 acre land as sharing boundaries on the North and the West respectively with his head lessor (i.e. the Dodoo Clottey Family) in its Exhibit ‘A’ which is relied upon to prosecute this Application, the land rather shares boundary on the North and West by its Assignor (i.e. Abeaku Appiah-Gyan) in Exhibit ‘A’. It is mind-boggling that no explanation was given to clarify this obvious inconsistency. No reason was also given for the absence of a site plan to Exhibit ‘A’. The oath of proof in 3 RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT NO. LD/0072/2024 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ ON 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 respect of the Exhibit ‘A’ though signed is not dated and appears to feed into the doubtful nature of the document. Equally intriguing is the fact that Joe Ansah’s name appears at the signature column as the Assignor, but the signature actually bears the name of Acquah. It is unclear if Joe Ansah signed his signature in the name of Acquah. What is suspicious is that the Attorney is called “Acquah”. There was no indication that as at 2000, he had the Power of Attorney from Joe Ansah to execute leases and legal documents on his behalf. When one compares the signature of Joe Ansah and Exhibit ‘F’ and that on Exhibit ‘A’ as the purported Lessee, he would not need a Signature Expert to conclude that the two alleged signatures of Joe Ansah are different and irreconcilable. Exhibit ‘C’ shows that the Assignment executed by Abeaku Appiah-Gyan was dated 10th of July, 2002. On the contrary, Exhibit ‘A’ is dated 11th June, 2000 and could not have been the same Assignment referred to in Exhibit ‘C’. The attached site plan to Exhibit ‘C’ is in the name of Samuel Tudeka. If the property belonged to the Plaintiff, why would the site plan be in the name of another person and yet no explanation was given to the Court? From the Plaintiff’s own documents, there are myriads of observations that put his interest in the subject matter land in issue and I do not think it is appropriate to grant the Application. In the circumstance, I refuse the Application and proceed to strike out the action as incompetent for Want of Capacity. I award costs of Five Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢5,000.00) in favour of the Defendant. (SGD.) H/L ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT 4 RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT NO. LD/0072/2024 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ ON 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 REFERENCES: CASES: 1. OWUSU VRS OWUSU ANSAH AND ANOR [2007–08] SCGLR 870 2. ANAMAN VRS OSEI TUTU [1976] 1 GLR 111 3. NATIONAL LOTTERY AUTHORITY VRS AIRTEL [2011] 36 GMJ 190. 5 RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT NO. LD/0072/2024 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ ON 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024