HO - A.D 2017
MAWULI KARIMU AND TOGBE KPONOR KWASI - (Defendant/Appellant/Co-Defendant)

CIVIL APPEAL NO:  H1/06/2017



Additional Grounds of Appeal:-

1. Failure of the deciding Judge to realize that the plaintiff/respondent as a Joint Administrator lacked capacity to execute any agreement such as Exhibit ‘E’ with the defendant/appellant without any authority such as a Power of Attorney from his mother as the other Joint Administrator (Administrix).

2. Failure of the deciding Judge to realize that Exhibit ‘E’ is not any valid document executed by the defendant/appellant it having been tempered with by plaintiff/respondent by unilaterally adding a site plan thereto i.e. that the doctrine and/or principle of “Non Factum Est” applies.

3. Failure of the deciding Judge to realize that failure of the plaintiff/respondent to produce and/or tender any previous tenancy agreement between his late father and the defendant/appellant’s late father is fatal to his action.

4. Failure of the deciding Judge to realize that Exhibit ‘E’ is unenforceable for lack of registration under S. 24 (1) of the Land Registry Act, 1962.

5. Failure of the deciding Judge to realize that Exhibit ‘R one’ is only a self-serving document from the custody of the plaintiff/respondent himself and was in any case a rejected document and not having been stamped has no evidential value.

6. The deciding Judge used irrelevant documents such as Exhibits ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘F’, ‘F1’, ‘F2’, ‘G’, ‘H’ and ‘J’ to reach his conclusions in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.

7. Failure of the deciding Judge to realize that, at best, the defendant/appellant’s fuel station land and the plaintiff/respondent’s land are two separate pieces of land sharing a common boundary and in two separate ownerships.


Statement of Claim:

1. A declaration that by virtue of an agreement dated 1st day of January, 1996, and executed between Aaron Fiagbedzi and the defendant herein, the defendant is expected to vacate the occupation and possession of the parcel or piece of lane he occupies at Juapong whereon he operates a Fuel Station and deliver possession to the plaintiffs forthwith, the said agreement having lapsed on 30th September, 2000.

2. An order of ejectment against the defendant forthwith.

3. Payment of rent in respect of the lease of the said land as described in the agreement from 1st October, 2000 at the current assessed rent up to date of vacation of land.

4. General and Special damages for trespass

5. Perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant, his agents, servants, privies, assigns from having anything to do whatsoever with the land in dispute with particular reference to the retailing of petroleum products and from having anything to do in the nature of business or residential purposes whatsoever.

Counterclaim of Co-Defendant:-

a. A declaration of title in respect of the piece and/or parcel of land described in paragraph 11 supra.

b. Perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff, workmen, and/or administrators, heirs and/or successors, agents, servants, workmen and assigns from any further interference with the land in any manner whatsoever.



1. Whether or not the plaintiff is a son of Aaron Wiston Kwashie Fiagbedzie – deceased and one of the administrator of the estate of the deceased and brings this action on his own behalf as well as that of the Estate of the deceased father.

2. Whether or not the deceased in his lifetime owned parcels of land at Juapong of which the land in dispute forms a part.

3. Whether or not in his lifetime Aaron Wiston Kwashie Fiagbedzie granted the land in dispute to the defendant’s father Karimu Alhassan to install a fuel station on leasehold/tenancy basis at Juapong.

4. Whether or not the plaintiff and other administrators of the estate caused a letter to be sent to the defendant herein by their solicitor on or by 19/6/95.

5. Whether or not the plaintiff and the defendant herein or by 1/1/96 executed an agreement in respect of the land which agreement expired on 30/6/2000.

6. Whether or not the said agreement is valid and was executed voluntarily or under threat.

7. Whether or not the land is as described in paragraph 7 of the statement of claim.

8. Whether or not on the basis of the principle “Nemo dat quod non habet” Togbe Kponor Kwasi V. had any interest left in the land to convey to the defendant.

9. Whether or not the land in dispute is stool land.

10. Whether or not having denied the title of his lessors the defendant is not entitled to quit the land.

11. Whether or not the defendant is liable to be ejected from the land.

12. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to payment of arrears of ground rent by the defendant on the lapsing of the agreement.


Grounds of Appeal:

The judgment is against the weight of the evidence.


Other grounds to be filed on receipt of the record of proceedings.