The Supreme Court of Ghana has unanimously ruled in a landmark case, dating back to 15th October 2019. In contrast, the High Court of Justice (Land Division 5) made a judgment in a case of Jeleel Company Ghana Limited vrs. Zion Energy Limited suite no LD/0539/2019 presided over by His Lordship Justice E K Bosompem Apenkwah declared title of a large track of situated at dentanPanteng in favour of Jeleel Company Ghana Ltd. Jeleel Company Ghana Limited further perfected their interest l by registering the same at the land commission with a land certificate number GA60316.
In November 2019, the High Court issued a writ of possession to assist Jeleel Company Limited in being put in a sound and peaceful possession. Which was duly executed, and the certificate of execution returned to the deputy Sheriff of the land court division, Accra, on Thursday, 5th December 2019.
Our investigation shows that in 2019, Trasaco made several attempts to buy the said land from Jeleel Company Ltd. Ghana made several attempts to buy the land, in which Jeleel refused to sell Trasaco. Jeleel proceeded to build over 600 housing units for its clients and full community currently housing over 600 families with children.
Trasaco, on the other hand, decided to use force by harassing the residents. Trasaco filed an Ex – party application to the high court (General Jurisdiction) with suite no GJ 0950/2020 dated 22nd July 2020 seeking the already executed writ of possession to be set aside. Presided ovee by His Lordship, Justice Stephen Oppong. It was adjudged that the high court has already placed Jeleel Company into possession already, and the certificate of execution has been returned to the duty Sheriff of the land court. Therefore, if the court aside the writ of possession, the court can not remove Jeleel Company from possession of the land because their high judgement and land title certificate is still valid. Setting aside a writ of possession does not give ownership to Trasaco.
Trasaco appealed at the court of appeal day 28th October 2021 with suite no. H3/30/2021. The court of appeal set aside the writ of possession. Leaving the high court judgement and land certificate of Jeleel Company Ghana Limited intact. The court of appeal did not declare title in favour of Trasaco nor make any executable orders. The legal team of Jeleel Company led by Tassah Tapha Tassah esq. Said there is no need to waste time and energy defending a writ of possession that has already been executed. It is obvious that Trasaco has no merit in his claim and is obsessed with the writ of possession.
Trasaco realised that the setting aside of the writ of possession at the court of appeal in effect means nothing made an application to the High Court for Executable orders; which was granted in favour of Trassaco; disragarding Order 41 Rule 7 (1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (CI 47).
Jeleel legal team led by Tassah Tapha Tassah esq. made an application for centiorari to the Supreme Court, relying on their high court judgement and their land certificate claiming there is a breach of civil Procedure Rules. The Trasaco legal team led by Kwame Amenno Tannor esq. relying on the court of appeal and the high court ruling.
The Apex Court in a unanimous decision delivered by a five- member panel adjudged as follows:
1. Breach of Civil Procedure Rules. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to adhere to Order 41 Rule 7(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47)—a mandatory provision that governs the procedure for obtaining certain types of court orders.
2. According to the apex court, this rule constitutes a statutory pre-condition that must be strictly observed in applications like the one under dispute.
3. The Apex court agreed that there has indeed been a breach of Order 41 Rule 7(1) of CI 47, which is the mandatory statutorily required pre-condition of accessing the nature of orders granted by the High Court,” the court stated.
4. The Apex Couet further explained that the High Court to ensure compliance with this provision rendered its ruling procedurally defective.
5. In addition, the Apex Court stated that there is a procedural breach, and the Supreme Court noted that the basis upon which the High Court exercised jurisdiction in favour of Trassaco Furniture Limited—was fundamentally flawed.6. Moreso, the Supreme Court further failed to find the foundation for invocation of the High Court jurisdiction and that the High Court’s decision against Jeleel Company Ghana Limited lacked the legal grounding necessary to stand.
In conclusion, His Lordship I O. Tanko Amadu (Justice of the Supreme Court), who was part of the 5 member panel, turned to Enesto Traconi (onwer of Trasaco ) and his legal team. ” You have no business going to the High Court, and you can not execute these orders on Jeleel Company’s lands. .”
After court, our reporter approached lawyer for Jeleel Company Ghana Limited Tassah Tapha Tassah esq. For his verdict of proceedings. He declined to speak. However, our reporter spoke with Kwame Amenanor Tannor esq. lawyer for Trasaco. He said he respect s the decision of the Supreme Court. 5 – 0 decision means there is a review, so he will advise his client accordingly.
Our reporter spoke with a legal expert who was at the Supreme Court and has been following the case since 2020. According to him, this case should not have travelled to the Supreme Court. Because you can not set aside a writ of possession in order to claim a track of land where a competent court has already declared title in favour of a party in case who you are not a party to. Trasaco and his legal team know what they are doing. Jeleel Company and their legal team stood firm within the legal framework. Unfortunately for Trasaco and his legal teaml, the supreme Court has exposed their legal tactics. The Trasaco and his legal team are trying to avoid the scrutiny of the court system to establish the true owner of the land. The Supreme Court have seen through their legal tactics and have put an end to the whole saga.
The Supreme Court’s decision not only nullifies the High Court’s ruling but sets a precedent on the importance of strict compliance with procedural rules in civil litigation, especially in applications that seek extraordinary reliefs
The legal expert further explained that this decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and procedural integrity in the dispensation of justice. It also serves as a cautionary reminder to lower courts to remain within the bounds of properly invoked jurisdiction and to rigorously apply civil procedure rules, especially when dealing with ex parte motions and interested party interventions.
The case had attracted attention in legal circles due to the involvement of high-profile parties and its implications for commercial litigation and judicial review procedures in Ghana.
This final brings an end to the Trasaco disturbances in the Adentan/Panteng enclaves. We hope the Trasaco management will adhere to the rule of law in the Republic of Ghana.
