A five-member panel of the Supreme Court has dismissed an application for stay of execution filed against Trassacco Furniture Limited concerning a parcel of land at Pantang in Accra.
Trassacco Furniture Limited was involved in a land dispute with Jeleel Company Limited and judgment was delivered by the Accra High Court in favour of Jeleel in 2019.
Trassacco, the applicant/appellant in the instant suit before the Supreme Court wanted the highest court of the land to stay execution of the Court of Appeal judgment dated October 28, 2021 in favour of Trassacco.
The Applicant joined Zion Energy Limited to the suit and asked the court for a declaration of title and recovery of possession of a parcel of land lying at Adentan with named boundaries and containing approximately 10.98 acres.
Jeleel Company Limited prayed the Supreme Court for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its agents, assigns or otherwise howsoever described from entering, assigning, transferring or otherwise disposing of or dealing with or developing the land which is the subject matter of this action.
The applicant also sought an of the court order directed at the Lands Commission to expunge any recorded transactions affecting the land in dispute, general and special damages for trespass and costs including legal fees.
But in ruling on the application on March 2, 2022, the Court presided over Justice Jones Dotse held that the application for stay of execution failed on grounds of failure by the applicant to comply with mandatory requirements provided in Order 43 rule (3)
“Under the circumstances of this case, whilst the preliminary legal objection that the failure by the Applicant to obtain leave before filing the appeal fails, the Application for Stay of Execution is however dismissed on a more substantive ground of failure tocomply with mandatory requirements provided in Order 43 rule (3) which is fundamental to the sustenance of the application.
The application for Stay of Execution by Applicant thus fails.”
The facts of the case are that on July 31, 2019, the High Court, (Land Division 5) Accra, delivered and entered final judgment in favour of the applicants in respect of their claims but reserved its reasons to the 15 of October 2019.
On December 15, 2019, the High Court delivered itself thus:
“It is trite learning that a Court will not declare title of land in favour ofa litigant unless he/she described the identity of the land he/she claim,precisely. See case of Nortey (No 2) v African Institute of Journalism and Communication &Ors (2013-2014} 1 SCGLR 703.
The plaintiff in the instant case has clearly described its land as being situate and lying at Adenta and given its dimensions and boundaries.
It has also been able to trace is root of title to the Kplen We Family of La as the allodial title owners and called the head of family to corroborate Plaintiffs claim.
After the delivery of the above High Court judgment in favour of the applicants, they applied to the High Court for a writ of possession which appears to have been executed even though the boundaries of the land have not been specified anywhere in the judgment of the High Court.
It is the case of the applicant that, long after the above judgment had been executed and the applicants placed in possession, the respondent herein, who was not a party in the trial High Court applied to the High Court, differently constituted on July 22, 2020 for a stay of execution and to set aside the writ of possession that had been granted.
BY MALIK SULLEMANA