Falcon Crestinvestment Ltd and Others v Klenam Construction Ltd (H1/130/2025) [2026] GHACA 3 (24 July 2026)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ACCRA – GHANA AD - 2026

Coram

MENSAH-HOMIAH, JA (MRS.) (PRESIDING) MYERS AHMED, JA (MRS.) ASEM, JA (MRS.) CIVIL APPEAL NO: H1/130/2025 DATE: 24 JULY 2026

KLENAM CONSTRUCTION LTD ………… PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT VERSUS

1. FALCON CRESTINVESTMENT LTD

2. SAMUEL KOFI DIAME

3. NUUMO ADJEI KWANKO II……… 1ST TO 3RD DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS

4. MR. ASHLEY

Judgment

MENSAH-HOMIAH, JA.

Sometimes, the adversarial approach leaves us to wonder whether litigation really resolves disputes. We dare say that the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism for matters which keep resurfacing in court but draped in different apparels , is mediation. Mediation presents a “win-win” outcome instead of the “winner takes it all” outcome in litigation.

Introduction

The 1st to 3rd defendants/appellants being aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court, Accra delivered on 28 March 2024 have invoked the jurisdiction of this court by their Notice of Appeal filed on 4 April 2024. For ease of reference, we will hereafter retain the designations of 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd defendants/appellants; and plaintiff/respondent at the court below. We will also refer to the Record of Appeal as ROA.

Background

On 5 February 2018, plaintiff commenced an action at the High Court (General Jurisdiction) Accra, against the defendants for following reliefs: a. Special damages:

1. Damage to fence wall valued at GH₵133,769.00

2. Damage to buildings valued at GH₵2,377,152.00

3. Damage to building materials GH₵51,298.00 TOTAL GH₵2,562,219.00 b. general damages for unlawful entry onto plaintiff’s estate. c. Interest on the sum claimed in (a) and (b) supra from 12 th January 2018 to date of final payment. d. An order for re-entry to the land described in paragraph 2 (of statement of claim) e. Costs.

The plaintiff alleged that at all material times to 12 January 2018, it was in actual possession of its parcel of land located at North East Airport measuring approximately 22.812 acres and more particularly described in paragraph 2 of its statement of claim. It was plaintiff’s case that while in possession, it openly constructed ten (10) units of storey buildings on the land, fenced the entire estate and mounted a security checkpoint. Also, plaintiff contended that it stocked several building materials on the land for purposes of the development. It was the further case of plaintiff that without prior notice or service of any court proceedings on the company, defendants, on 12 January 2018, while acting by themselves or per their representatives, wrongfully and illegally entered plaintiff’s land and pulled down all the structures thereon. Plaintiff alleged a breach of the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice because as an entity in possession of the subject matter land, defendant was enjoined to serve plaintiff company with notice failing which the execution process becomes a nullity. As a result of the wrongful and illegal conduct of defendants, plaintiff a sserted that it suffered special damages totaling GH₵2,562,219.00. The defendants resisted plaintiff’s claims in their amended statement of defence and counterclaim filed on 28 July 2022 . Their contention was that, plaintiff has no interest in the disputed land as it claimed to have obtained it from Moufid El-Adas and his company called Sadac Builder Ltd, who had also acquired it from the Nungua Stool. They went on to state that 3rd defendant’s quarter and family has obtained several judgments over the disputed land situate at Okpoi Gonno against plaintiff’s grantors and listed same as follows: (i) Nuumo Adjei Kwanko II vs. Lebanon Society & 2 Ors, Civil Appeal No. J4/8/2015; (ii) Nuumo Adjei Kwanko II vs. Lebanon Society, Civil Appeal No. H1/2013/12; (iii) Nuumo Adjei Kwanko II vs. Lebanon Society & 2 Ors. Suit No. L

303/2001; and (iv) Ransford Addoquaye & 3 Ors vs. Falcon Crest Invest Ltd & 2 Ors, Suit No. LD/0424/2017. It was defendants’ case that Kle Musum Quarter and Tsie We lands are vested in 3 rd defendant in his capacity as the Osabu -Ayiku Wulomo of Teshie who exercises ownership and that Kle Musum Quarter/Tsie We lands could only be granted by the Osabu-Ayiku Wulomo of Teshie with the elders of Teshie We, as was held in Nii Mate Tesa & 5 Ors vs. Numo Nortey Adjeifio & 3 Ors, Suit No. 383/89 ; Emmanuel Adjei Mensah vs. Numo Adjei Kwanko & 2 Ors. (a High Court Ruling delivered on 15 November 2017) and affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. H1/231/2018 entitled Emmanuel Adjei Mensah vs. Numo Adjei Kwanko & 2 Ors. Defendants went on to state that any purported grant of the disputed land from Nii Nortey Adjeifio to plaintiff in 1999 was void ab initio, as 2nd defendant is the lawful owner of this land measuring 21.98 acres covered by Land certificate No. GA 56341 Vol. 46 Folio 271 based on a grant from 3 rd defendant’s family and has developed substantial part of this land. While plaintiff was in the process of obtaining its Land Title Certificate, 2nd defendant caused its lawyers to write letters to the Director, Land title division drawing his attention to the pendency of the case in respect of the land in dispute. Yet, the Lands Commission went ahead to issue the Land Title Certificate to plaintiff in breach of section 98(2) and (3) of the Lands Act, 2020 (Act 1036) , which makes the Land title Certificate null and void. Defendants stated further that the issuance of this Land Title Certificate has caused great hardship to defendants and their grantees. They also pleaded that a court of coordinate jurisdiction cannot question the validity or otherwise of the judgment or orders of another court of coordinate jurisdiction and counterclaimed for the following reliefs: a. An order to the Director, Land Title Division of the Lands Commission to cancel Land Certificate No. GA. 69426 Vol. 46 folio 367p dated the 22 nd day of June, 2022

in favour of plaintiff issued during the pendency of this suit as being illegal and void forthwith. b. Perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff from laying any claim to the land in dispute based on the Land Certificate No. GA 69426 Vo. 46 Folio 367p. c. Perpetual injunction restraining the Director, Land title Division of the Lands Commission from issuing Land Certificate based on the Land Certificate No. GA 69426 Vo. 46 Folio 367p. d. General damages. e. Cost inclusive of legal fees. FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT After a plenary trial, the court below made the following findings from which it drew its conclusions on the issues for determination: (i) On the question of whether the defendants are estopped from laying claim to the disputed land by reason of the judgment in “Sadac Builders Ltd & Nii Abraham Adjei Kwei vs. Regimanuel Gray Ltd & 5 Ors . Suit No FT (IV)/8/2003, the trial court found at page 1504 of the ROA vol. 4 that, per exhibit ‘D’, 3 rd Defendant’s Tsie We family has been held to have validly made the grant, and 1 st and 2nd defendants who are claiming through the 3 rd defendant are estopped from denying the title of Plaintiff to the disputed land. (ii) On the issue of whether it is the Osabu-Ayiku Wulomo or Nii Nortey Adjeifio (plaintiff’s grantor) who has capacity to grant Kle Musum Quarter or Tsie We family land, the trial court found at page 1506 vol. 4 of ROA that although ordinarily the Osabu - Ayiku Wulomo, together with his elders, has the right/capacity to grant Kle Musum lands, in the particular circumstances of this case, the family is estopped f rom raising the issue of capacity in these proceedings because exhibit ‘D’ was not appealed and it is binding on them.

(iii) In determining whether per the decision in Mrs. Agnes Ahadzie & Pioneer Mall Ltd vs. Boye Sowah (substituted by Samuel Nortey & Others (Civil Appeal No. J4/33/2018 dated 21 March 2019 , Exhibit F, defendants can claim ownership of the disputed land which forms part of Okpoi Gonno land, the court found that defendants cannot claim ownership because Okpoi Gonno land belongs to the Nungua Stool and not the Kle (sic) Kusum/Tsie We family of Teshie. The trial court explained that it was bound by the Supreme Court’s latest decision in exhibit “F” although the S upreme Court did not expressly state that it was departing from its previous decision on this particular matter of ownership. (iv) As regards the validity of plaintiff’s land Certificate , the trial court distinguished the instant case from the case of Numo Nortey Adjeifio (substituted by) Nii Adjei Sankuma & 6 Ors vs. Nii Mante Tesa (Substituted by) Daniel Markwei & 5 Ors. (Suit No. H1/9/12, dated 19 April 2012, CA. The Court observed that there was no pending dispute or dispute about registration and defendants had also not sought any declaration of title in respect of the disputed land. And, following the setting aside of the High Court Order which had set aside plaintiff’s Land Certificate No. GA 54109, plaintiff was restored to its previous position and the obvious thing to do was to apply to the Lands Commission to re -issue the Land Certificate. The trial court c oncluded that defendants could not demonstrate that plaintiff’s Land certificate No. GA 69426 Vol. 46 Folio 627p is void. (v) With respect to the question of compensation for the destruction of the plaintiff’s property, the court held that it was not in doubt that plaintiff had suffered damage, except that plaintiff could not prove same by credible

Evidence

The court rejected plaintiff’s claim for special damages but awarded GH₵500,000.00 in favour of plaintiff as general damages, for the damage

caused to its property by defendant and costs of GH₵100,000.00. The court made a further order for plaintiff to re-enter the land. In effect, the trial court granted plaintiff’s reliefs (b) and (d) but dismissed plaintiff’s reliefs (a) and (c) as well as defendants’ counterclaim as unproven.

Grounds of Appeal

a. The trial Judge erred in failing to holding (sic) that the plaintiff/respondent is bound by the judgments in Suit no. L303/2011 titled Nuumo Adjei Kwanko II vs. Lebanon Society & 2 Ors that ended at the Supreme Court; Suit No. FT(IV)/8/2003 entitled: Sadac Builders Ltd & Abraham Adjei Kwei vs. Regimanuel Gray Ltd & 5 Ors; and Suit no. LD/0424/17 entitled : Ransford Addo Quaye Addotey & 2 Ors vs. Falcon Crest Investment Ltd & 2 Ors , situate at Okpoi Gonno forms part of the Tsie We Family land but not Nungua Stool land. b. The trial Judge erred in relying on the Supreme Court Judgment in Civil Appeal No. (sic) entitled: Mrs. Agnes Ahadzie & Another vs. Nuumo Adjei Kwanko II & Ors, to hold that the land in dispute forms part of Nungua Stool land when 1st to 3rd defendants/appellants were not parties or privies to same. c. The trial Judge erred in failing to hold that plaintiff/respondent is estopped by sections 25 and 26 of Evidence Decree, 1975 (NRCD 323) from denying that the land in dispute situate at Okpoi Gonno forms part of Tsie We family land by virtue of the recitals in plaintiff/respondent’s Deed of Assignment dated the 24 th day of May 2017 and the conduct of plaintiff/respondent director who testified at the trial court. d. The trial Judge erred in failing to vitiate the grant of Tsie We family land to the plaintiff/respondent for not emanating from the Osabu-Ayiku Wulomo of Teshie, the head of the Tsie We family and the Kle Musum Quarter contrary to several judgments of all the Superior Courts of Ghana that it is only the Osabu -Ayiku

Wulomo whom the Tsie We family land is vested alone with elders of Tsie We who could validly grant same. e. The trial Judge erred in failing to order for forfeiture of plaintiff/respondent’s Assignment dated the 24th day of May 2017 for challenging or denying the title of the Tsie We family to the land in dispute when plaintiff/respondent’s assignment was based on a lease dated the 23rd day of December 1999 from the Tsie We family contrary to section 27 of the Evidence Decree, 1975 (NRCD 323). f. The trial Judge erred in failing to invalidate plaintiff/respondent’s Deed of Assignment dated the 24 th day of May, 2017 as incomplete when same contained no site plan. g. The trial judge erred in failing to invalidate Land Certificate No. GA 69426 vol. 46 Folio 367p dated the 2 nd day of June 2022 obtained when the issue of title of the land in dispute was still pending in court to plaintiff/respondent’s knowledge. h. The Judgment is against the weight of evidence. SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL, ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL We comment on the formulation of the grounds of appeal. With the exception of the omnibus ground, we share the sentiments of plaintiff’s counsel that the other grounds are verbose, inelegant and fall short of the strict requirements of rules 8 (4) and (5) of the Court of Appeal Rules, C.I.

19. Indeed, the Supreme Court in cases like FKA Company Ltd. vs. Nii Tackie Amoah VI & Ors., Civil Appeal No/J4/2016 dated 13/4/2016 ; and Zabrama vs. Segbedzi [1991] GLR 221 at 226 CA, decried the practice of filing grounds of appeal which fall short of the procedural rules. Speaking through Akamba JSC, the Apex Court had this to say in the FKA Company case:

“It is important to stress that the adjudication process thrives upon law which defines the scope of its operation. It is trite to state for instance that, nobody has an inherent right of appeal. The appeal process is the creature of law. Any initiative within the context of the adjudication process must be guided by the appropriate relevant provision, be it substantive law or procedural law. As courts, if we fail to enforce compliance with the rules of court, we would by that lapse be enforcing the fai lure of the adjudication process which we have sworn by our judicial oaths to uphold”. See also: Ayikai v. Okaidja III (2011) SCGLR 205 In as much as we do not endorse this blatant disobedience to the rules of court, we are guided by the modern trend that strict adherence to form ought to give way to substance, as was espoused in the case of Bako-Alhassan vs AG (2013 -2014) 2 SCGLR 823 at 826 (holding 2). Moreso, where the pivotal issue for consideration can be inferred from the non-compliant ground of appeal, the need to do substantial justice must outweigh technicalities. We also instruct ourselves on the approach adopted by the Supreme Court in International Rom Ltd vs. Vodafone Ghana Ltd (2016) GHASC 62 (6 June 2016), where the Court proceeded to consider the core complaint raised in the appeal after striking out the non -compliant grounds. Then also, in Justice Gilbert Mensah Quaye v. Koiwah Investment Co. Ltd & Others, Civil Appeal No. J4/42/2018 dated 30 January 2018 , the Supreme Court amended the grounds of appeal found to be non -compliant with the procedural rules so as to deal with the real issues on appeal. We do not intend to be overly technical in our approach. We will not strike out the defendants’ grounds of appeal complained of. Instead, w e would consider the main complaints raised therein.

Going forward, we would consider the submission s of both Counsel, carry out our analysis and determine the core issues raised under each ground of appeal argued by counsel.