Plaintiff Denied Any Gift

During the trial, the plaintiff maintained that no promise had ever been made to transfer ownership or a life interest in the property. He explained that the first defendant had only been permitted to occupy the outhouse temporarily and had no authority to install tenants or treat the property as his own. He further stated that when he sought to renovate the property, the defendant frustrated his efforts and later asserted ownership through a letter claiming an inter vivos gift.

Conversely, the first defendant insisted that he had relied on the plaintiff's assurances when he embarked on lengthy eviction proceedings against squatters and extensive renovation works before renting out the premises to tenants. His witnesses, including his wife and two tenants, corroborated aspects of his account concerning the renovations and tenancy arrangements.

Court Rejects Alleged Oral Transfer

Justice Obiri identified the central question as whether any oral representation allegedly made by the plaintiff could lawfully transfer an interest in the inherited property.

The Court held that the property had been devised jointly to three beneficiaries who therefore held it as tenants in common. Since there had been neither partition of the property nor acquisition of the co-beneficiaries' interests by one beneficiary, no individual beneficiary possessed authority to alienate the entire property or create a life interest in favour of another person without the consent of the remaining co-owners.

Relying on established Ghanaian land law principles and the doctrine of nemo dat quod non habet—that one cannot give what one does not have—the Court concluded that even if the plaintiff had made the alleged promise, it would have been legally void because the consent of the other beneficiaries had neither been obtained nor proven. Consequently, the alleged oral promise was incapable of enforcement.

Claim for Renovation Costs Also Fails

The Court equally dismissed the defendant's alternative claim seeking reimbursement for renovation expenses.

Justice Obiri observed that although the defendant claimed to have spent approximately GHS200,000 renovating the property and removing squatters, he neither pleaded the particulars of those expenditures nor proved them through credible documentary evidence as required for claims of special damages.

Obiri JA. rejected a five-page expenditure schedule tendered by the defendant, describing it as a self-serving document prepared solely for the litigation. He further noted that the document was unstamped under the Stamp Duty Act, 2005 (Act 689), rendering it inadmissible despite having been admitted during the trial.

The Court therefore found that the alleged expenditure had not been proved on the balance of probabilities.

Tenancy Agreements Declared Invalid

Although the Court accepted evidence that the first defendant had indeed rented rooms in the outhouse to tenants and had received rent through his wife, it declined to order him to refund the rents to the plaintiff because there was insufficient evidence establishing the precise amounts received. Instead, the Court observed that the rents could reasonably be regarded as compensation for the defendant's efforts.

However, Justice Obiri ruled that the defendant lacked legal capacity to create tenancy agreements over the property without the consent of all the beneficiaries. Consequently, every tenancy agreement entered into by the first defendant in respect of the property was set aside, with any refund of rent advances to be borne by the defendant rather than the plaintiff.

Orders of the Court

The High Court granted most of the plaintiff's reliefs, declaring that House No. 53 Cliff Road remains part of the estate of Stephen Otopa Addo-Yobo. It ordered the immediate ejection of the second defendant from the outhouse, recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiff, and a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's enjoyment of the property.

The Court declined only the plaintiff's claim for refund of rents collected by the first defendant, citing insufficient evidence of the amounts received. It also awarded costs of GHS20,000 against the defendants and dismissed the counterclaim in its entirety.

CLICK HERE TO READ/DOWNLOAD FULL DECISION