Court sets out issues for trial

November 16, 2007 (Page 31)

Story: Mabel Aku Baneseh

THE Accra Fast Track High Court has set aside three issues for trial in a suit brought against the 31st December Women's Movement (DWM) by a businessman for recovery of his property after it ruled on preliminary issues raised by counsel for both parties.
The businessman, Mr Wassef Sadallah Dakmak, has sued the DWM to reclaim his building at North Ridge, which was confiscated to the state under AFRC Decree 6 in 1979 and is currently being occupied by the DWM.
However, the defendant has prayed the court to dismiss the action because it acted in accordance with AFRC Decree 6, adding that there was nothing on record to prove that the confiscated property belonged to the plaintiff.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice K. A. Ofori-Atta, set out the three issues for trial after counsel for the defendant and the plaintiff had argued their cases.
Counsel for the defendant, Mr Tony Lithur, had argued that the action brought by the plaintiff was baseless because the plaintiff's property was confiscated under AFRC Decree 6 but counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Thaddeus Sory, had argued that the property had been deconfiscated under PNDC Law 325.
In its ruling on the preliminary issues raised by counsels for the parties, the court held that after looking at the AFRC Decree 6, it was evident that the property had been confiscated by the State but was quick to point out that it had taken into consideration plaintiff’s argument that the property was later deconfiscated.
It, therefore, urged the plaintiff to state how and when his property was deconfiscated.
Consequently, the court, after careful consideration of the arguments from both parties, will look at whether or not plaintiff’s property was confiscated under AFRC Decree 6, whether or not the said property was deconfiscated by PNDC Law 325 and whether or not in view of transitional provisions of the 1992 Constitution, the plaintiff can bring the action to recover his property.
The matter was adjourned to Wednesday, January 23, 2008 for hearing.
The plaintiff is praying the court to declare the defendant’s occupation of his property as unlawful.
He is also praying the court to order the immediate recovery of property from the defendant, as well as grant loss of revenue by way of rent which would have accrued to the plaintiff if he had rented the property from August 3, 1979 to the day of final judgement.
The plaintiff is also asking for interest at any sum assessed to be due him at the prevailing bank rate or as the court may deem fit from August 3, 1979 to the day of final judgement.
The defendant has, however, denied all the plaintiff’s assertions and stated that it acted in accordance with the law.