J   U   D   G   M   E   N   T 
Plaintiff on 19th June, 2012 issued a writ of summons with a statement of claim seeking the following: 
a) Declaration that the judgment of the High Court dated 22nd July 1997 was obtained and granted by fraud and illegality.  b) An order to set aside the judgment. c) Declaration that defendant herein has no capacity to grant out any of the C.F.C estate land at Mile 7½ on the Accra-Nsawam road. d) Declaration that all grants by defendant herein of C.F.C lands based on the 1997 judgment be null and void. e) Order for account of all lands granted by defendant of the C.F.C estate lands for regularization of titles for such grantees. 
Page 2 of 8  
f) Declaration that Onamrokor-Adain family is the rightful grantor of the plaintiff. g) An order to Deeds Registry to cancel registration of the 1997 judgment in the name of defendant.  h) General damages. i) Costs. 
The defendant filed a conditional appearance and later filed a motion to dismiss the writ of summons. This application was however not granted and the parties were eventually ordered to file documents they intended to be relied on in the suit as well as their pre-trial checklist and witness statements. The issues arising upon application for directions being taken are: 
a) Whether or not the land in dispute at Mile 7½ on Accra-Nsawam road forms part of Dome lands legally acknowledged to be Onamrokor-Adain family land? b) Whether or not the lands at Mile 7½ was by lease agreement of 22nd October 1955 leased to plaintiff-company for 99 years and same was registered as 2421/1955 for him to build dwelling houses on same and lease out? c) Whether or not by indenture issued on the said lease executed by the Head of Onamrokor-Adain family, Dr. C. E. Reindorf, with the concurrence of the principal members of the family established that the said grant was done on behalf of the Onamrokor-Adain family and not as the personal property of Dr. C. E. Reindorf?  d) Whether or not it was fraudulent and illegal on the part of Dr. C. E. Reindorf to have willed or devised the said leased lands to his daughter and nephew as it came out after his death? 
Page 3 of 8  
e) Whether or not the judgment of the High Court in Suit No. 1450/1992 given on 22nd September 1997 describing such a devise by Dr. C. E. Reindorf in his will as right is rather fraudulent and illegal and therefore a nullity and must be declared as such?  f) Whether or not plaintiffs are the same as those in the Suit the judgment in issue here was given against here? g) Whether or not plaintiff has locus in this matter?  h) Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to his claim?  
The representative of the plaintiff-company, Florence Leela Dyson, who is currently the Managing Director of C.F.C Construction Limited having succeeded her brother, Francis Dyson, prayed the court for an order of the court that judgment of the High Court in Suit No. 1450/1992 delivered on 22nd September, 1997 be declared null and void on grounds that the said judgment, the devise of the CFC land granted by Dr. C. E. Reindorf, was as the Head of Onamrokor-Adain family. 
In 1955, the late Dr. Charles Elias Reindorf executed a lease between the plaintiffcompany and himself as Head of the Onamrokor-Adain for a period of 99 years. Dr. C. E. Reindorf died in 1967 and willed his properties to Emelia Reindorf and Hackenburg Reindorf and this the plaintiff -company is praying for the judgment of 1997 on Suit No. 1450/1992, which is based on the devise of Dr. C. E. Reindorf to his successors to be set aside. According to plaintiff, the grant of the land was made by Dr. C. E. Reindorf in his capacity as Head of family of the Onamrokor- Adain family and not in his personal capacity. 
The case of the defendant is that his grandfather, Dr. C. E. Reindorf, was gifted the land in question in 1952 under a grant to “himself and the female line of the family” that is his maternal line of the family. This grant, plaintiff says prescribed a joint 
Page 4 of 8  
tenancy of ownership by him and the maternal line of the family. His death therefore made the family the sole owner. 
This was denied by defendant who said the devise to Emelia and Hackenburg was legitimate devises, because the land had been gifted to Dr C. E. Reindorf on recognition of his father Rev. C. C. Reindorf for his outstanding leadership as one time head of family.  
According to defendant, Dr. C. E. Reindorf appointed the Registrar-General as the Administrator / Executor of his estate and they in turn vested the property in the devisees, Emelia and Hackenburg Reindorf. Plaintiff-Company has refused to pay ground rent for over 24 years hence the action which resulted in the judgment in Suit No. 1450/1992 which the plaintiff is seeking to set aside for fraud and illegality. 
Upon considering the evidence adduced, I find as a fact that the land in dispute forms part of the Dome lands at Mile 7½ on the Accra-Nsawam Road acknowledged to be legally the property of the Onamrokor-Adain family. 
I also find as a fact that the said land at Mile 7½ was by the lease agreement of 22nd October 1955 leased to the plaintiff-company for 99 years and same was registered as 2421/1955 and it was meant for the plaintiff to build dwelling houses on same and to lease out. This was unchallenged. 
On the issue of the capacity in which the grantor, Dr. C. E. Reindorf, granted the lease, the court has had to look at the lease agreement in its entirety to reach its decision. The agreement dated the 20th of May, 1952 and registered at the Deeds Registry as No. 774/1952. This grant was made between Nii Jacob O. Quayefio, Nii Tetteh Cobblah, Ahere Nukpa Anoi Lamptey, Emmanuel B. Quarcoo and Charles T. Quarcoo, all appointed representatives and elders of the Onamrokor- Adain 
Page 5 of 8  
family of Accra, on the one part, and Dr Charles Elias Reindorf, “acting in his capacity as Head of Onamrokor-Adain female line family of Accra aforesaid”. 
In my humble opinion, this grant of land to Dr C. E. Reindorf and the female line of the Onamrokor Adain family created a joint ownership between Dr. Reindorf and the female line. It did not confer on him absolute ownership. The question is whether in a joint tenancy as this was, Dr. Reindorf had the right to make the said grant of the land, a subject matter in his will and to devise the said lands as if they were his personal property. Dr. Reindorf may have been under the impression that the 1952 grant made him an owner of the lands absolutely. Given the ordinary meaning of the 1952 document, I beg to differ. Before January 1974 when the Conveyancing Decree was enacted, where property was given to two or more people without express words to show otherwise, no distinct or separate share was created, but rather a joint tenancy was created. This joint tenancy had the characteristics of the right of survivorship and the unity of possession, unity of interest, unity of title and unity of time. This means that interest in such a joint tenancy cannot pass under a will or even intestacy. From the foregoing, it is clear that Dr. Reindorf did not have a right under law to devise the lands under his will to the beneficiaries therein. Having made such a finding it is important to look at the agreement between Dr. C. E. Reindorf and C.F.C in 1955. 
The 1955 grant was between the plaintiff, C.F.C on one part, and Dr. C. E. Reindorf, who executed the document in his capacity as the then Head of family of the Onamrokor-Adain family with consent and concurrence of the principal members of the family. This goes a long way to signify that that particular grant was entered into by Dr. C. E. Reindorf in his capacity as Head of family and not his personal capacity as owner of same. The document is as plain as can be and does not need any special 
Page 6 of 8  
interpretation to determine the meaning of the 1955 grant between Dr. C. E. Reindorf and the plaintiff.  
The plaintiff has sought to establish that the judgment of my senior brother Gyamera Tawiah J. was acquired by fraud and illegality. I have critically looked at the evidence adduced so far and I am of the opinion that the judgment of 1997, which was given by the Court, was under the impression that indeed the ancestor of the plaintiff, then Dr. C. E. Reindorf, was the bona fide owner of the Dome lands that he had devised under his will. This may have resulted because the defendant then who is the plaintiff herein did not appear to defend the matter. The Court did not seem to have been apprised of the existence of a public notice dated the 15th of  November, 2000, issued by the Administrator-General, notifying the general public of the revocation of vesting assent given in favor of Emelia Patience Reindorf and the administrators of the estate of Late Daniel Hackenburg Reindorf and others which had been done on 30th December, 1993. 
It is also worthy of note that the law of survivorship which was in operation in Ghana as at 1967 when Dr. C. E. Reindorf died, made the property in question the property of the female line of the Onamrokor-Adain family. Dr. C. E. Reindorf could therefore not devise it to anyone as if it was his personal property. It is therefore an illegality to do so. The devise was null and void that the plaintiffs in Emelia Reindorf v. C. F. C Co. Limited based their claim and upon which the court also based its judgment. 
It is also worthy of note that the plaintiff in the case of Emelia Reindorf (substituted by Carl Reindorf) v. C.F.C  Co. Limited, were aware of the Administrator-General's withdrawal of vesting assent long before judgment was passed in that case and it was the plaintiff's duty to disclose any such information to the Court. Fraud is a tort arising from a known misrepresentation made to induce another to his or her 
Page 7 of 8  
detriment. According to Lord Denning in the case of Lazarus Estates v. Beasley [1959] 1 All ER at 341, "No court in the land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud". 
The plaintiffs herein have alleged fraud in this matter and have gone to lengths to put across what fraud they are referring to. The Appeal Court stated that “a charge of fraud is to be taken to be properly made against a party who knowingly or recklessly, whether by conduct or words used unfair, wrongful or unlawful means to obtain a material advantage to the detriment of another party". 
Again, in the case of Republic v. High Court, Accra, Ex parte Aryeetey [20032004] SCGLR 398, it is stated that "Fraud is a serious sin against the administration of justice. It vitiates everything. Thus a judgment obtained through fraud can best be set aside and when a judgment is impeached for fraud, its legitimacy is put in issue and cannot operate as an estoppel per rem judicatem provided the alleged fraud is properly and adequately raised ...” 
This Court from the foregoing holds that the judgment of the Court in the matter of Emelia Reindorf v. C.F.C Co. Limited with Suit No. 1450/1992 was a judgment illegally obtained by fraud.  
The said judgment is therefore set aside. 
It is again declared that the defendant herein has no capacity to grant out C.F.C estate lands at Mile 7½ on the Accra-Nsawam road and that all such grants made on the basis of the 1997 judgment are null and void. It is hereby declared that the Onamrokor-Adain Family is the rightful grantor of the plaintiff. The defendant is ordered to account to plaintiff for all lands granted, for regularization of title for such 
Page 8 of 8  
grantees. The Deeds Registry is hereby ordered to cancel the registration of the 1997 judgment in the name of defendant.  
General damages of GH¢10,000.00 is ordered to be paid to plaintiff and cost of GH¢3,000.00 is awarded to plaintiff.  
                              
SGD JUSTICE DORIS BEMPONG (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)  