Quaynor and Another v Ofosuhene and Another (SUIT NO.H1/120/2024) [2026] GHACA 8 (16 July 2026)

ROLAND KWENORTEY QUAYNOR & ANOR V. PADMORE KWESI OFOSUHENE & STEVEN OSEI OWUSU - JUDGMENT

pg. 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ACCRA, 2026

Coram

JEROME NOBLE-NKRUMAH, J.A (PRESIDING) GEORGE BUADI, J.A FRANKLINA GESILA ADANU, J.A

SUIT NO.H1/120/2024 16TH JULY 2026

1. ROLAND KWENORTEY

2. MRS. IRENE GRACE QUAYNOR -------- PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS

VERSUS

1. PADMORE KWESI OFOSUHENE --------- DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS

2. STEVEN OSEI OWUSU

Judgment

ROLAND KWENORTEY QUAYNOR & ANOR V. PADMORE KWESI OFOSUHENE & STEVEN

Osei Owusu - Judgment

pg. 2 FRANKLINA GESILA ADANU, J.A:

1.0 General Overview This appeal, which arises from the decision of the High Court dated 31/05/2013, beckons this Court to decide whether the disputed land belongs to the Appellants or the Respondents, both of whom claim to be grantees of the Nii Abetia Family of Asofa. Sir Richard Torin Kindersley, in the long-standing case of Rice v. Rice [1853] 2 Drew 73; 62 ER 646 stated at page 648 as follows:

“As between persons having only equitable interests, if their equities are in all other respects equal, priority of time gives the better equity; or qui prior est tempore polior est jure… and that, if the one has other grounds a better equity than the other, priority of time is immaterial… In examining into the relative merits (or equities) of two parties having adverse equitable interests, the points to which the Court must direct its attention are obviously these: the nature and condition of their respective equitable interests, the circumstances and manner of their acquisition, and the whole conduct of each party with respect thereto. And in examining into these points, it must apply the test, not of any technical rule or any rule of partial application, but the same broad principles of right and justice which a Court of Equity applies universally in deciding upon contested rights.”

2.0 Facts: The original Writ of Summons that commenced the suit in the trial court was issued against the first Defendant/Appellant. Subsequently, on the application of the Plaintiffs/Respondents filed on 12/02/2008, the second Defendant/Appellant was joined as Co-Defendant.

2.1 Plaintiffs/Respondents’ Case (“Respondents”) ROLAND KWENORTEY QUAYNOR & ANOR V. PADMORE KWESI OFOSUHENE & STEVEN

pg. 3 By an amended Statement of claim filed on 20/02/2009 pursuant to the order of the court, the Respondents claimed as follows:

i. “Declaration of title to all that piece of land situate lying and being at Asofa, in the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana and containing an approximate area of 0.23 acre (plot no.250) and bounded on the North by a proposed road measuring 100’-0’ more or less on the South by Lessor’ s property, measuring 100’-0’ more or less on the East by Lessor’ s property measuring 100’-0 more or less on the West by Lessor’ s property measuring 100’-0 more or less which piece or parcel of land is more particularly delineated on the plan attached hereto and thereon shown edged pink. ii. Recovery of possession of the said land. iii. Damages for trespass. iv. An order for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant by himself his servants, workmen and/or agents from entering the land, occupying it or carrying on building activities on it or in any way interfering with plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of the land.”

The Respondents contended that by virtue of a High Court judgment dated 19/07/2004 decided in favour of John Atuquaye Korley & 7 Others in the consolidated Suit No. L318/02 intituled John Atuquaye Korley & 7 Others v. Lands Commission, the disputed land is not government land. The Respondents state that by a lease dated 24/06/2000, stamped as LVB12183/2000 and made between Nii Ayitey Tetteh, head and lawful representatives of the Nii Abetia family of Asofa as lessor and the Respondents as lessees, the disputed land was leased to the Plaintiffs for 99 years. Shortly after the grant, the Respondents say that they went into possession of the land and carried out various acts of possession thereon. They constructed a concrete structure , including the ROLAND KWENORTEY QUAYNOR & ANOR V. PADMORE KWESI OFOSUHENE & STEVEN

pg. 4 foundation and walls of a building, on the land. It is the case of the Respondents that the Appellants entered the land and rapidly started building structures on top of the Respondents’ existing structure. They aver that upon discovering the signs of trespass, they made verbal warnings to the Appellants to desist from continuing with their trespassory acts, followed by a report to the Respondents’ grantor, who summoned the parties to appear before him on two occasions. Subsequently, the Appellants reported the matter to the police, who, after arresting and detaining the Respondents’ workmen, ordered all the parties not to enter the land again until investigations were completed. Despite the warnings, the Appellants continued in their trespassory acts, thus permanently altering the nature of the land and causing irreparable damage thereto to the detriment of the Respondents. According to the Respondents, their plot number is

250. However, a copy of the document provided by the Appellants to the police showed that the Appellants’ plot number is

248. Therefore, the Appellants have no title to the Respondents’ land.

In their Reply and Defence to Counter Claim, the Respondents further stated that by the Appellants’ own showing, the alleged grant by the Nii Abetia Family to the Co-Appellant could not have been before 2006. They asserted the existence of evidence that the alleged grant to the Co-Appellant was made long after the grant to the Respondents and that part of the foundation they built long before the alleged grant to the Appellants, as well as walls they constructed to lintel level, exist on the land to present. The Respondents further say that they have submitted their lease to the Land Title Registry and have received a yellow card. Additionally, their application has been published in the newspapers as notice to the whole world. The Respondents asserted that the indenture relied on by the Appellants is invalid since it has not been properly executed by the Nii Abetia Family and their valid stamp is not embossed on it.

ROLAND KWENORTEY QUAYNOR & ANOR V. PADMORE KWESI OFOSUHENE & STEVEN

pg. 5

2.2 Defendants/Appellants’ Case (“Appellants”) In their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim filed on 08/02/2008 and 06/06/2008 respectively, the Appellants denied the Respondents’ contention that they are the owners of the disputed land. The Appellant asserted that they are beneficial owners of the land in dispute and that the Respondents’ alleged grantor could not have legitimately leased the disputed land to the Respondents, as it had been leased to the Co-Appellant since 01/02/2000 by the Nii Abetia family of Asofa, then lawfully represented by Nii Aryeetey Tetteh, the deceased head of family. The Appellants further stated that, assuming without admitting that the Respondents acquired the land as per the lease dated 24/06/2000 and stamped as LVB/2183/2000, the piece of land comprised in the said lease is different in location from the disputed land. They stated that upon acquiring the land, the Appellants went into immediate possession and commenced activities thereon without let or hindrance and that at the date of the commencement of the suit, a six (6) bedroom residential building had been constructed on the land at lintel level. It is the case of the Appellants that in the early part of 2006, the Respondents forcibly entered the Co-Appellant’s land and demolished part of his building and commenced building thereon without the consent of the Co - Appellant. The Appellants further state that the Respondents entered the land forcibly at a time when the Co-Appellant had long constructed his building thereon, which was at an advanced stage of completion. The Respondents used building materials on the land belonging to the Co-Appellant and quantified the cost of the demolished structure, among others.

According to the Appellants, the matter was reported to the police, who in the course of investigations, caused the Survey and Mapping Department, Lands Commission, Accra, to conduct a survey of the respective land as comprised in the title documents of the parties and prepare a composite plan thereof. The ROLAND KWENORTEY QUAYNOR & ANOR V. PADMORE KWESI OFOSUHENE & STEVEN

pg. 6 survey result showed that the Respondents’ land was located far away from the location of the disputed land whiles it showed the location of the land owned by the Co-Appellant as the land in dispute and that the police was in the process of arraigning the Respondents before court on criminal charges of trespass and causing damage to Co-Appellant’s building, which proceedings had commenced and pending before the Circuit Court, Accra.

The Appellants further say that pursuant to a judgment of the High Court, Accra, delivered on 19/07/2004, which confirmed the ownership of the Co-Appellant’s grantor to a vast area of land, including the land in dispute, Co-Appellant’s grantor, per a Daily Newspaper publication dated 08/07/2006, invited all land owners in the area for a confirmation and regularisation of their title documents. The Appellants say that when the Co-Appellant responded to the invitation, a new lease was executed in his favour, which said lease is in the process of registration. The Appellants, therefore, maintained that the Respondents are not entitled to their claim.

The Appellants counterclaimed as follows:

i. Declaration of title to all that piece of land situate lying and being at South Ofankor, Asofa Residential Area in Accra and bounded on the North by the Lessor’ s land, measuring 100 feet more or less, on the South by the Lessor’ s land measuring 100 feet more or less, on the East by a proposed road measuring 100 feet more or less and on the West by the Lessor’ s land measuring 100 feet more or less and covering an approximate area of 0.23 acre. ii. Recovery of possession of the said land. iii. Recovery of special damages of One Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifteen Ghana Cedis (GH₵ 1,215.00), being the total value of the Defendant’ s ROLAND KWENORTEY QUAYNOR & ANOR V. PADMORE KWESI OFOSUHENE & STEVEN

pg. 7 principal’ s building demolished by the Plaintiff and the Defendant’ s principal’ s building materials used by the Plaintiff. iv. General damages for trespass. v. Perpetual injunction restraining the Plaintiffs either by themselves or their agents, workmen and assigns from entering the land, occupying it or carrying on building construction thereon or in any way interfering and disturbing defendant’ s and co-defendant’ s peaceful; enjoyment and use of the land in issue.”

3.0 The Trial Court

By a court order dated 16/06/2008, the Regional Surveyor was requested to undertake a survey of the disputed land and to superimpose the respective plans of the feuding parties on his survey plan. A land surveyor, Frank Wontumi from the Regional Survey Department, who surveyed as ordered by the court, tendered his completed work in evidence as Exhibit CW.1 without any objection. The witness testified that the Respondents’ indenture was not given; only the site plan was presented. He produced the site plan signed by the surveyor on 15/12/2006 and by the Regional Surveyor on 18/12/2006 in evidence as Exhibit 1.

The first Respondent testified by himself. According to his testimony, he first paid a deposit on 25/05/2000 to the Nii Abetia Family of Asofa, the receipt in respect of this payment was produced as Exhibit A. The receipt regarding the second payment made on 01/06/2000 was also tendered in evidence by the first Respondent as Exhibit B. He also produced in evidence the Appellants’ indenture dated 01/02/2000 between Nii Aryeetey Tetteh of Asofan and Stephen Osei Owusu as Exhibit C. The first Respondent further produced his indenture in respect of the disputed land dated 24/06/2000, granted by Nii Ayitey Tetteh, the family head as Exhibit D. Yellow Card No. 03029/2000 dated 12/09/2000 ROLAND KWENORTEY QUAYNOR & ANOR V. PADMORE KWESI OFOSUHENE & STEVEN

pg. 8 received from Land Title Registry and its attachments were produced in evidence as Exhibit E. The receipt issued to the Respondents by the High Court Registrar when the Oath of Proof in respect of exhibit D was sworn dated 11/09/2000 was tendered in evidence as Exhibit F. Court notes for 19/07/2004 in Suit No. 318/202 was produced in evidence as Exhibit G. The Writ of Summons in Suit No L/318/02 with its accompanying Statement of Claim was produced in evidence as Exhibit H. Exhibit J dated 08/03/2001was a receipt from the Survey Department representing payment made by the Respondents for a site plan.

The Respondents called their first witness, Francis Ayaah Tetteh, PW1, a farmer who lives at Asofah and is currently the head of family. He confirmed that the Respondents bought the land from the Nii Abetia family. According to him, it was through his senior brother, the late Nii Alex Tetteh Aryeetey, that the Respondents acquired the land and that he, as the family linguist at the time, led the surveyor and six other persons to the site. He produced the document signed by the deceased head of family with the round type of stamp embossed as Exhibit K. The obituary of the deceased head of family was produced as Exhibit L. The site plan of a boundary owner called Mr. Korbiah, dated 08/11/2006 , was tendered as Exhibit M. A photocopy of page 12 of the publication made by the family in the Daily Graphic of 08/07/2006 requesting grantees of Asofa lands to have their grants regularised, was produced as Exhibit N. He also tendered in evidence the Appellants’ indenture dated 12/03/2006 between Nii Francis Ayaah Aryeetey and Stephen Osei Owusu as Exhibit 2.

David Odartei Lamptey (PW2), a surveyor, was the Respondents’ next witness who identified the current head of the Abetia family and confirmed knowledge also of his deceased predecessor. He confirmed demarcating the Respondents’ plot to them in 2000 and proceeded with the registration in 2001. He testified that he had never prepared any site plan ROLAND KWENORTEY QUAYNOR & ANOR V. PADMORE KWESI OFOSUHENE & STEVEN

pg. 9 for the Co-Appellant in respect of Asofa lands. He affirmed that the exact plot for which he prepared the site plan for the Respondents was number 250, which was the last plot that the late family head, Nii Alex Aryeetey gave out from the sector 2 or B layout. His further evidence was that the Respondents were the first persons for whom the family erected pillars. He testified that the Respondents’ documents were submitted for stamping and registration in 2001, but in the process of preparing the cadastral plan, by the Survey Department it was discovered that there was a slight difference between the family’s grid line and that of the Survey Department. They pursued the site plan from 2001 to 2006 and later prepared a new one for PWI to sign for the Respondents. He signed it in 2006, and in that same year, they got to know from the Respondents that someone had encroached on the land. The round stamp used in stamping documents was missing in 2000, and a new square stamp was procured in 2001. Any document executed with a round stamp after 2000 cannot be a document executed by the head of family. He was recalled to produce in evidence the two separate layouts of the disputed land, headed “Asofa Residential Layout Phase I” and “Land Property of Asofa Family as and P1, respectively.”

On the part of the Appellants, the Co-Appellant, who resides in Holland and purchased the disputed property in 2000, testified by himself. He testified that he met the head of Asofa family, Nii Ayeetey Tetteh, with a friend named Panyin. Nii Ayitey Tetteh informed him that the land was personally his, so he paid him after he had shown him the bushy land. He then had the land cleared , and a foundation was erected for a six-bedroom self-contained house. According to him, his building had reached floating level when he left it in charge of his brother, the Appellant for Holland. He visited the property any time he visited Ghana until October 2006, when he was informed by the Appellant that there were people at the site who had demolished part of his building and had started constructing a fence wall around his land. He maintained that he was the first to ROLAND KWENORTEY QUAYNOR & ANOR V. PADMORE KWESI OFOSUHENE & STEVEN

pg. 10 start development on the land and that his building had reached lintel level. He produced in evidence the indenture dated 01/02/2000 between Nii Aryeetey Tetteh and Stephen Osei Owusu as Exhibit 3.

Next to follow was the testimony of the Appellant, Padmore Kwasi Ofosuhene. He testified that in December 1999, the Co-Appellant was in Ghana in search of land to buy. He produced in evidence the report dated 17/12/2007, which was the composite plan commissioned by the police headed Padmore Kwasi Ofosuhene (for Stephen Osei Owusu) v. Mr. & Mrs Rolland K. Quaynor as Exhibit