Judge Acquaye Interpretive Wisdom In Defence Of The Indefensible

20. 10. 2004

In the High Court of Justice, Ghana, held in Accra on Friday the 22nd day of October 2004, before His Lordship Kobena Adoe Acquaye, J

Suit No. BL. 637/2004

Richard Osae Duodu (Plaintiff) versus Nana Ama Benewaa (Defendant)

Parties Present:

Mr. Kofi Amenya for the defendant applicant--present

Mr. G.H Quist for the plaintiff respondent?present

Ruling:

This an application by the defendant to restrain the plaintiff, his agents, assigns and workmen from developing the land in dispute. Moving the application counsel said the defendant bought the land from land the Reindorf family with Carl Reindorf as the authorised signatory for the family. She took vacate possession and started developing. Later she found plaintiff developing the land. Enquiries from Carl Reindorf revealed that one Amugi had forged Carl Reindorf?s signature and succeeded in registering in Amugi?s name and that it was Amugi who later sold the land to the plaintiff. Counsel for the applicant said Carl Reindorf denies signing Amugi?s document and wrote the Lands Commission complaining about Amugi?s fraud and calling for the cancelling of Amugi?s documents. As a result the Land Commission invited the said Amugi from investigation into the authenticity of his documents but the latter failed to attend. Counsel submitted that the question of authenticity of Amugi?s documents is fundamental issue to be determined in the suit and looking about the fast pace with which the plaintiff is developing the land, if he is not restrained he would complete his building before the issue can be determined.

Opposing the application counsel for the respondent said one Aboagye was solicitor for the Reindorf family and the family gifted two plots of land to him. Counsel said lawyer Aboagye sold one of the plots to Amugi and got Carl Reindorf to sign the lease to Amugi who registered it with the Lands Commission. Amugi later assigned the plot to the plaintiff who also registered it with the Lands Commission before he started developing the land. Counsel denied that Amugi?s document was a forgery. Counsel also denied that the defendant started developing the plot but rather it was Amugi who erected a fence wall on the footage of the plot before selling it to the plaintiff. Counsel submitted that had the defendant made a search at the Lands Commission she would have found that the land was registered in the names of Amugi and the plaintiff. Counsel submitted that the Reindorf family having divested themselves of the land to Lawyer Aboagye and Amugi the land no title to give the defendant. Counsel submitted that as the plaintiff had reached the lintel level he will suffer more hardship if the application is granted and prayed the courts to dismiss the application.

It is settled law that an interim injunction lies in aid of a legal right hence an applicant must establish a right to be protected. The indenture exhibited by the defendant applicant has not been registered and thus lacks legal recognition. The indenture of the plaintiff and his grantor have been duly registered at the Land Commission and are prima facie evidence of title which cannot be ignored until the alleged forgery is proved. Secondly the plaintiff?s documents whether FORGED OR NOT were registered at the Lands Commission and constituted notice to the whole wide world. Had the defendant exhibited the least diligence by conducting a search she would have been made aware of same. Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent thus the applicant?s conduct does not assist her applicant.

Lastly, by the photographs exhibited in this application, the plaintiff?s building is at the lintel level. Considering the cost of building I am of the view that more hardship will be occasioned the plaintiff respondent if this application is granted.

The application for interim injunction is thus dismissed.

(Sgd.) K.A. Acquaye

JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT.

RECORDS OF REINDORF FAMILY?S LAND BEFORE AMUDZI?S FORGERY

Search in the Lands Commission. Original No.

Name and Address of Enquirer:

The search applied for against the land Edged Red on the Plan attached has been made with the following result:

The land is not State land. It however affects:

Conveyance dated 20/5/1952 From: Nii J.O Quayefio To: Dr. C.E. Reindorf

(b) Lease dated 22/10/1955 From Dr. C.E. Reindorf To C.F.C Limited

(c) Lease dated 17/6/1973 From: C.F.C Limited To: AB. Konuah

(d) Vesting assent dated 4/10/1991 From: James D. Essuman (Acting Administrator General) To: Emelia P. Reindorf and Reindorf

(6) Judgement dated 22/7/1997 in favour of Emelia Reindorf and Others.

EMMANUEL ROGER AMUDZI?S FORGED DOCUMENT

Search in the Lands Commission. Original No. O/S 3088/2004 Name and Address of Enquirer: Emmanuel Roger Amudzi P.O. Box 4302 Accra

The search applied for against the land Edged Red on the Plan attached has been made with the following result:

The land is not State land. It however affects:

(a) Lease dated 22/10/1955 From: Dr. C.E. Reindorf TO C.F.C Limited

(b) Lease dated 27/6/1973 From: C.F.C Limited To: Addai Konuah

(c) Conveyance dated 24/8/1995 From: Carl Josiah Reindorf To: Emmanuel Roger Amudzi

(d) Judgement dated 22/7.1997 In favour of Emelia Reindorf and Others

(e) Conveyance dated 9/6/2004 From: Emmanuel Roger Amudzi To: Richard Osae Duodu.

While Amudzi claimed to have registered the land on 24/08/1995, the date on his indenture which was tendered into evidence by Osae-Duodu read 10/04/98 under the name James Reindorf. Interestingly, the date on his processing receipts read: 8/8/ 2003, 13/11/2003 and 26/11/2003 with land registration number AR5883/2003. Note that despite Osae Duodu?s claim to have registered the land at the Lands Commission, he has no indenture or processing receipts.

NANA AMMA OBENEWAA?S RECORD AFTER POLICE INVESTIGATION AND VINDICATION BY FORENSIC REPORT.

Search in the Lands Commission. Original No. O/S 5886/2005

Name and Address of Enquirer:

The search applied for against the land Edged Red on the Plan attached has been made with the following result:

The land is not State land. It however affects:

The land is not State land. It however affects:

(a) Lease dated 22/10/1955 From: Dr. C.E. Reindorf TO C.F.C Limited

(b) Lease dated 27/6/1973 From: C.F.C Limited To: Addai Konuah

(c) Conveyance dated 26/6/2003 From: Carl Josiah Reindorf To: Nana Amma Obenewaa.

NB. Conveyance dated 24/8/1995 From: Carl Josiah Reindorf To: Emmanuel Roger Amudzi and conveyance dated 9/6/2004 From: Emmanuel Roger Amudzi To: Richard Osae Duodu have been lapsed from our records in view of Police Forensic Laboratory report dated 7/6/2005.

A Letter of Complicitous Fraud issued by G.H. Quist (Roger Amudzi?s and Osae-Duodu?s Lawyer to the Lands Commission. Please Note the Contradiction(s) Regarding the Year of Land Purchase as Specified in the Attorney?s Letter (30/06/2003) and On Roger Amudzi?s Search in the Lands Commission?s Records.

Prudential Law Offices: Solicitors & Advocates 2nd Floor Borwah House, Kwame Nkrumah Avenue, Adabraka, P.O. Box GP1448, Accra Tel: 021-257454, Mobile 024-436386/024-585402/ 024-434252

15TH July 2004

The Regional Lands Officer

Lands Commissioner

P.O. Box CT 5008 Accra, Ghana

Dear Sir

Re: Administration of Lands Act 1962. Land Situate at C.F.C. Estate Mile 7 Dome.

We act as solicitors for and on behalf on our client MR. Emmanuel Roger Amudzi of Accra. Your letter dated June 2004 with reference N. AR/4647/2003 on the above subject matter has been referred to us with instruction to react to same.

According to our client he bought the said land measuring 70X160 and the area of 0.25 acre from one lawyer Kwabena Aboagye deceased and on and around the 30th day of July 2003.

Our client was reliably informed by the lawyer that the said land was gifted to him by the Reindorf family who he had acted for on several occasions and was in fact the family and this has been captured on the receipt issued by lawyer Aboagye to our client. (Please find a copy of the receipt attached.

According to our instructions because lawyer Aboagye (deceased) has not been given documents evidencing the gift transaction, after the sale of the land to our client went back to Carl Reindorf who signed the indenture for him and which he gave to our client.

Our client then registered this document for over one year and it was only now that my grantor is dead that Mr. Reinforf is claiming that he never signed the letter.

We believe that its is only a calculated attempt to deny our client what he had rightfully purchased.

We would urge you to ignore the said letter by the lawyer.

Yours faithfully

G. Quist (Solicitor for Client)

Rec?d at the Lands Commission on 19/7/04.

Richard Osae Duodu?s Amendment to his First Application Which Formed the Basis of the Dismissal of Application for Restraint.

In the Superior Court of Judicature In the High Court of Justice Accra ?A.D. 2004

Suit No. 637/2004

Richard Osae Duodu H/No. CFC 39 St. John Dome Accra

VRS Nana Amma Obenewaa Accra

Motion on Notice for Leave to Amend Reply and Defence to Counterclaim.

Kindly take notice that the next adjourned date counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant shall seek the leave of the Honourable court to amend Paragraph 8 of the reply and paragraph 1 of the Defence to counterclaims as follows:

1.By adding a new paragraph 8(a) to the reply to read as follows: the plaintiff further deny the averments in paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 and in answer say that at the time he purchased the land he was not aware of any incumbrance on it.

(2) By adding paragraph 1 of the defence to the counterclaim, the following sentence ?The Plaintiff would further plead that he is the bonafide Purchase of the Legal Estate for the value without any incumbrance.

Dated in Accra This 8TH Day of December, 2005.

G. Quist (Solicitor for Plaintiff)

The Registrar High Court Accra