An Accra High Court has cleared the path for a full hearing in a high-profile property dispute involving a luxury residential development at East Legon after an attempt to terminate the case was abandoned by the defendants.
The Land Division of the High Court struck out an application that sought to have the suit dismissed after lawyers representing the defendants formally withdrew the motion.
The ruling means the court will now proceed to examine the substantive claims surrounding ownership and occupation of the disputed property.
The legal battle was initiated by renowned property developer Carlos Kwebena Allston, who is seeking judicial intervention over what he describes as the unlawful occupation of a property situated at 17 Abraham Dzani Close in East Legon.
With the preliminary challenge now out of the way, attention shifts to the central issues before the court, including questions of legal ownership, possession rights, and allegations of trespass connected to the property.
Lawyers for the plaintiff argue that the dispute highlights a growing concern over the use of criminal investigations and prosecutions in matters that are fundamentally civil in nature, particularly land and property disagreements.
Court documents identify the defendants as Perry Okudzeto, Desmond Afeku, and Wise Horgli, all of whom have been named in the suit over their alleged involvement in the contested property.
According to Mr Allston’s amended statement of claim, he is the registered owner of the land on which a seven-unit apartment complex known as Jasmine Close was developed.
The developer contends that another building located within the same property boundaries was never included in any transaction involving the defendants and remains solely under his ownership.
The plaintiff alleges that Mr Okudzeto, who previously purchased apartments valued at US$460,000, and Mr Afeku took possession of the property without lawful authority despite having no legal interest in it.
Mr Allston further claims that Mr Horgli, instead of pursuing a civil action to establish ownership rights, lodged complaints with the Ghana Police Service, leading to his arrest, prosecution for alleged trespass and a six- day remand in police custody.
He further maintains that although some apartment units were legitimately sold, the structure currently at the center of the dispute was neither sold nor transferred to any of the defendants through any legal arrangement.
He claims that complaints lodged with the Ghana Police Service ultimately resulted in his arrest on allegations of trespassing on property he insists legally belongs to him.
The developer states that he was detained and remanded in police custody for six days during the course of the criminal proceedings, an experience he argues significantly affected his ability to manage and protect the property.
According to the suit, a police caution issued against him further restricted his access to the premises, creating conditions that allegedly enabled others to remain in occupation of the property.
The plaintiff is now asking the court to determine the rightful ownership of the disputed structure and to address what he describes as unlawful interference with his proprietary rights.
Legal observers say the case could provide important guidance on the boundaries between civil property disputes and criminal law enforcement interventions.
The court is expected to hear evidence from all parties as proceedings move into the substantive phase, where documentary records and witness testimony are likely to play a critical role.
The outcome of the case is anticipated to attract considerable public attention due to the profile of the parties involved and the broader implications for property ownership disputes in Ghana.
For now, the High Court’s latest decision ensures that the matter will be determined on its merits rather than being dismissed on procedural grounds.
The case has therefore entered a crucial stage, setting the scene for what could become one of the closely watched property litigation battles currently before the country’s courts.
