Achimota School Land

Re: Netlynk Estates Limited & 66 Ors. v. Beatrice Adom & 10 Ors. (Suit No. IRL/52/10)

We attended court on 17th July, 2017 and the court adjourned its decision on whether to conduct a trial of the action by the remaining 64 Plaintiffs or to enter judgment against all 67 Plaintiffs to await a decision on an application filed by the 64 Plaintiffs to the Supreme Court.

The 64 Plaintiffs filed their application on 14th July 2017 and are praying for:
a. a certiorari order to quash the judgment delivered on 19th June 2017, and
b. a prohibition order to restrain/prevent the judge from further proceeding with this case.

On 19th June 2017, the court delivered its judgment and dismissed the claims by all the Plaintiffs, and granted the counterclaim of the 9th Defendant. The court then adjourned the matter to 17th July 2017 to decide which of the 67 Plaintiffs are affected by the counterclaim and the quantum of damages to award in favour of the 9th Defendant.

Yesterday, the 64 Plaintiffs notified the court by a letter dated 14th July 2017 that they have filed the application at the Supreme Court, essentially, to stop the court from giving its decision on the Plaintiffs who are affected and the amount of damages for their trespass. We are yet to obtain our copy of the application but a cursory look at the Plaintiffs’ copy shows that the 64 Plaintiffs are challenging the impending entry of judgment against them without having been allowed to testify in the suit.

We are taking steps to obtain our copy to review and advise you fully. However, this development means that the 64 Plaintiffs would be permitted to testify if the Supreme Court grants their application. If the application is dismissed then the judge will go ahead and deliver its decision as he had scheduled to do yesterday. No date has been fixed yet for the Supreme Court to hear the application and so we will pursue a date and also draft our affidavit in opposition immediately.

To recap the background to yesterday’s proceedings, the 9th Defendant successfully argued and the court stayed proceedings in respect of the 64 Plaintiffs on 17th February 2012 to await the trial of the action by the 3 other Plaintiffs. The 3 Plaintiffs were chosen to represent all 67 Plaintiffs on the basis of whether they acquired their land from the Owoo family or Oku family or none of the two families. The action involving the 3 Plaintiffs ended with the judgment on 19thJune 2017.

We therefore prayed the court to enter judgment against the 3 Plaintiffs since they are not parties to the application before the Supreme Court but the court held the view that damages awarded may need to be apportioned amongst the 67 Plaintiffs and so refused to vary his orders and enter judgment against the 3 Plaintiffs ahead of the Supreme Court’s determination of the application by the 64 Plaintiffs.

This is our update.

Kind regards,

Kodwo Kwesi Fynn
(Lawyer representing Achimota School)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Old Achimotan Association 
Date: Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:55 PM
Subject:  OAA Updates- Land issues

Fellow Akoras and Friends of Achimota School Judgement in the Netlynk case was given by Justice Aduamah Osei this afternoon after 7 years of litigation. The judge comprehensively dismissed the claims brought by Netlynk and 66 others against the School and instead upheld the School’s counterclaims. The court found that: 1. The properties of Netlynk and the others are on the School’s land; 2. The Oku We and the Owoo families had no title to the areas encroached on and had no right to grant leases of land to other people; 3. Netlynk and the others were not “bona fide purchasers” and were reckless in acquiring their respective purported grants from the Oku We and Owoo families; 4. Netlynk and the others have trespassed onto the School’s land; and 5. The School is entitled to repossess its land and to damages for the destruction caused to the School’s properties including the farm and sewage system. The court reserved judgement on the question of which of the 67 encroachers will be liable to pay damages for the destruction and to have their property repossessed by the School. The court ordered lawyers to file legal arguments on this question by 4th July 2017 and for final orders in that respect to be made on 17th July 2017. We will keep you informed.