Court stops Afare Donkor & Mutawakil …stay off Roman Ridge House

Accomplished Ghanaian banker and diplomat, Afare Donkor together with a man he supposedly sold a house to under contentious circumstances, Issah Mutawakil, have both been ordered by a High Court in Accra to stay away from the said house that is being contended over at Roman Ridge, a plush area in Accra.

The Court, on Wednesday December 21, gave the injunction order in fulfillment of a prayer from the petitioner, one Emmanuel Kwame Anatsui who claims he is owner of the property but Mutawakil and the Afare Donkor are claiming ownership.

The petitioner said his tenants he had lawfully logged into the property were forcefully ejected by the defendants and that for the intervention of the Airport Police, the invasion of the defendants could have turned bloody.

The plaintiff’s lead counsel, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, argued in favour of the injunction and showed the court evidence of the attacks on the tenants by the defendants.

“My Lord, the people came on motorbikes and they were armed”, Afenyo-Markin told the court and said if the judge does not grant the injunction, there is a possibility the attackers would return to cause more harm.

In a counter argument, Lawyers for the defendants, Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah, Paul Dzadey, and Perella Bruce said the injunction, if granted would not have been done in accordance with law.

The judge, however granted the injunction and ordered both defendants in the case as well as their assigns are to stay away completely from the property located at Roman Ridge pending the filing of an Application in opposition and determination of same by their lawyers within 14 days.

Statement of Claim

Emmanuel Anatsui, the plaintiff said he approached the first defendant, Afare Donkor who happens to be a former Ambassador to China and offered to buy the said property.

Checks by the plaintif showed that the 1st Defendant in a deed dated 15th June, 2010 had assigned his interests including rights and obligations to UT FINANCIAL SERVICES.

He said in a letter dated 15th June, 2010 addressed to the Commissioner, Lands Commission, the 1st Defendant informed the Commissioner of the assignment of all his interests to UT Financial Service and further applied to obtain the requisite consents.

The Plaintiff says that the sale to UT FINANCIAL SERVICES notwithstanding, the 1st Defendant had agreed to sell the said property to him in a Memorandum of Understanding which was subsequently revoked on 15th November,2010

The Plaintiff revealed further that UT Financial Services in a deed dated 18th April, 2011 assigned all its interest including its rights and obligations in the said property to him after the payment of USD 750,000.00 receipt of which UT Financial Services duly acknowledged.

He said that as the 1st Defendant had at the time not obtained the requisite consents and subdivision approval from Lands Commission in favour of UT Financial Services, (the duty of the 1st Defendant to do so persisted) he agreed to obtain the requisite consents in favour of the Plaintiff the cost of the consent to be shared between the Plaintiff and the 1ST Defendant.

The Plaintiff said he continued to enjoy peaceful occupation of the property until 27th September, 2021 when the 1st Defendant through his lawyer sought to evict him from the said property stating that he had exercised the option to renew under the head lease although he had assigned all his interests in the said land including rights and obligations to UT Financial Services (UT Bank Limited) who had subsequently assigned its interest to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff said he responded to the said letter through his lawyers in a letter dated 11th October,2021 reminding the 1st Defendant that he had assigned all his interest in the said property to thus the option to renew extinguished along with the assignment to UT Financial Services.

The Plaintiff continued his narration that to his utmost shock and surprise, it came to his attention that the 1st Defendant had surreptitiously and fraudulently sold the said land to the 2nd Defendant, Issah Mutawakil.

Particularization of fraud

He said the 1st Defendant at all material times knew or ought to have known that his rights in relation to the said property were extinguished when he assigned his interest in the property to UT Financial Services who subsequently assigned same to the Plaintiff.

He said the 1st Defendant knew that he had no interest to the said land to alienate to the 2nd Defendant but still proceeded to do so.

He alleged that the 1st Defendant deliberately refused to obtain the necessary consent despite several demands on him to do so but secretly went ahead to exercise a right of renew which was not available to him because he knew same had been extinguished with the assignment to UT Financial Services and subsequent assignment to the Plaintiff.