An Accra High Court has ordered ACP Estate Limited (ACPEL) to return undeveloped portions of a 200-acre land that contains the ACP Estates at Pokuase to the Nii Dodoo Clottey Family of Pokuase.
That was after the court had found the company to have breached a contract with the family with regards to the development of a 600-acre land.
In a judgement delivered on March 10, this year, the court further ordered the real estate company to pay damages and costs of GH¢200,000 to the family for the breach of the contract.
The court presided over by Justice Kwame Gyamfi Osei, held that ACPEL failed to honour its obligations under a joint venture agreement (JVA) it signed with the family on October 22, 1991, to provide the entire 600 acres with access roads, drains, electricity and water.
In view of the ACPEL having breached its obligations under the agreement, the court held that the JVA was unenforceable and, therefore, abrogated, with all the undeveloped lands on the 200 acres which the family gave to the company as part of the agreement reverting to the family.
Possession
The court, however, refused to grant a relief by the Nii Dodoo Clottey Family to take possession of the entire 200-acre land, including those containing 276 houses that constituted the ACP Estate, Pokuase.
It held that the company had already sold the 276 houses to third parties and, therefore, reverting those houses to the family, especially when the owners of the houses were not part of the court proceedings, would not be fair.
“I grant the defendant family possession of all the undeveloped and empty spaces delineated on Exhibit CE4. For the avoidance of doubt, all areas not containing any residential building shall revert to the Nii Dodoo Clottey Family of Pokuase,” Justice Osei ordered
Compensation/ rent
The court further ordered the ACPEL to refund GH¢9.5 million to the family. It was part of compensation paid by the Millennium Development Authority (MiDA) for usage of part of the land.
It was the considered view of the court that the only benefit that accrued to the ACPEL under the JVA was the construction of houses on the 200-acre land for sale, not claiming compensation on undeveloped portions of the land.
“Why should a court of justice look on for the plaintiff, who has blatantly cheated the defendant family, be made to keep that compensation money, which said the money could help the defendant family develop the abandoned 400 acres?” it quizzed.
Again, the court ordered the ACPEL to pay to the family rent from November 2001 to date on the land it had developed.
The rent, it said, would be based on the prevailing bank and interest rates, after a rent assessment by the Administrator of Stool Lands.
It gave the judgement after it had dismissed a suit filed by the ACPEL and upheld a counter-claim filed by the Nii Dodoo Clottey Family.
Lawyers who won the case for the family are John Jerry Asiedu and Ernest Agbesi Normenyoh.
Background
Per court documents, the Nii Dodoo Clottey Family of Pokuase decided to turn their 600-acre land into an integrated modern residential town.
In pursuant of that, on October 22, 1991, the family entered into the JVA with the ACPEL.
Under the agreement, the ACPEL was supposed to provide access roads, drains, electricity and water on the 600-acre land, with the family having exclusive control to allocate and sell 400 acres of the land
The family leased the remaining 200 acres to ACPEL for 99 years for the real estate company to build houses and sell them for its (company’s) benefit.
Per the agreement, the company was supposed to provide the access roads, drains, electricity and water on the entire 600-acre land without discrimination, meaning it could not provide the amenities only on its 200 acres, to the detriment of the 400 acres under the control of the family.
Suit
On September 22, 2016, the ACPEL filed a suit at the Lands Division of the Accra High Court, accusing some members of the Nii Dodoo Clottey Family of encroaching on its portion (the 200 acres).
The company urged the court to declare the entire 200 acres as its land and place a perpetual injunction on the defendant from encroaching on the land, as well as an order for recovery of the land and damages for trespass.
The defendant, including two principal elders of the family, refuted the assertions of the real estate company and contended that the company had sold some parts of the land in the portion under the control of the family (the 400 acres) and, therefore, they had encroached on the company’s land as replacement.
In addition, the defendant filed a counter-claim, accusing the ACPEL of breaching its obligations under the JVA.
It was the case of the family that since 1991 when the agreement was signed, the ACPEL had not constructed any access road and drain or provided water and electricity on the 400 acres, which was the portion of the family.
Rather, it said the company had provided the access roads and amenities on its portion (the 200 acres), a situation it said was a blatant breach of the agreement signed between the family and the company in 1991.
The defendant, therefore, urged the court to abrogate the JVA and revert the 200 acres of land given to the company under the JVA back to the family.
Court’s decision
Delivering the judgement, Justice Osei held that although the ACPEL had focused on the 200-acre land and the lease covering that particular piece of land, the entire case was essentially about the JVA because the lease was born out of that agreement.
It was the considered opinion of the court that evidence on record clearly showed that the ACPEL did not construct any access road and drainage nor provide water or electricity on any part of the 400 acres which were under the control of the family.
According to the court, the evidence showed that the company only provided such amenities on the 200 acres which were under its control, a clear violation of the JVA.
It said apart from the evidence adduced in the courtroom, the court also went on a site visit to the land, and it was realised that the real estate company had failed to construct the access roads, drainage and other amenities on the 400 acres.
ALSO READ:
NETCOWAS lauds Community-Managed Piped Water Services in Ghana
2022 BECE: Tears, miscarriage as WAEC cancels English paper
“The evidence placed it beyond doubt that the plaintiff (ACPEL) has not constructed a foot of road within the 400-acre land for the past 32 years. It has not constructed an inch of drain, not provided electricity and water within the 400 acres,” Justice Osei held.
Based on the company’s failure to fulfil its obligations under the JVA, the court abrogated the contract and reverted the undeveloped portions of the 200 acres to the Nii Dodoo Clottey Family and further gave the other consequential orders.