Appeal Court confirms Alpha Beta Education Centre’s valid title to land
The Court of Appeal (CA) has confirmed that Alpha Beta Education Centre Limited has a valid title to land located at Dansoman-Akokoforto area in Accra.
The court equally held that the registration of the land by the plaintiff and the issuance of the land title certificate by the Lands Commission to the Alpha Beta Education Centre Limited was valid.
The court ordered recovery of possession in favour of plaintiff, of all those land mentioned in both suits which the defendants have trespassed unto.
It granted perpetual in junction in favour of both suits against the defendants, their successors-in-tile, privies, agents, workmen among others from dealing with the land and doing anything inconsistent with the plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment of the land.
Additionally, the court awarded costs of GH¢100, 000 to the plaintiff (Alpha Beta) and GH¢40, 000 general damages against each defendant in both suits.
The order was made by the court comprising Justices Henry Kwofie, P. Bright Mensah and Mrs Janapare Bartels- Kodwo.
The plaintiff proceeded to the CA to appeal against the judgement of the High Court delivered on March 5, 2021, in consolidated suits namely Reverend Mama Mercy and 10 others and Nana Osei Bonsu and nine others.
Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court filed an appeal.
Plaintiff held that the trial judge, after affirming that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of the title to the disputed land, erred in not granting the relief of possession.
Again, the trial judge erred by holding that the defendants were in possession of the land.
Also, the trial judge erred when he dispensed with the composite plan, which had been drawn to aid the court in arriving at a just judgement.
Furthermore, the plaintiff held that the trial judge also erred in holding that the “Yao Duade Case” in which judgement was given in 1963 granted possession of Akokoforto lands to the Sempe Stool.
The defendants also appealed against the judgement of the High Court, saying the trial judge among others also erred when he held that a 1963 judgement covered the disputed land and yet stated that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of title to the disputed land.
The CA set out to ascertain among others whether or not, the defendants were trespassers and whether or not the land in dispute was acquired by fraud by the plaintiff and whether or not the plaintiff was entitled among its claims.
The court in its judgement held that evidence led on record indicated that the “Sempe Stool was not entitled to possession and was, therefore, never granted any possessory rights over the disputed land.”
—GNA
