Tension mounts over 29-year Nima house dispute amid claims of police interference

Tension is building around a long-running family house dispute in Nima, with members of the Babalola family raising concerns about police involvement and continued activity at the property while the matter remains before the High Court.

The dispute centres on House No. E199/15, Nima 441, which has been under litigation for close to 29 years, following competing claims linked to transactions dating back to the 1990s.

An application for an interlocutory injunction is pending before the court. The application seeks an order restraining the defendant, his agents or assigns from entering, demolishing, constructing on or otherwise interfering with the property until the substantive suit is determined.

Court documents show that the dispute began in 1996, when the late Ms Victoria Tamakloe entered into an agreement with Mr Rabiu Babalola for the purchase of the house, which formed part of the estate of their late father, Mr Gbadamoshie Babalola, who died in 1974. Ms Tamakloe paid part of the purchase price but did not obtain vacant possession.

While that agreement remained in force, the house was later sold to Ms Mariam Ahmed. This development led Ms Tamakloe to file an action at the Circuit Court in Accra in 1997, seeking specific performance, damages for breach of contract and a perpetual injunction. Judgment was entered in her favour in December, 2000. An appeal by Ms Ahmed was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in April, 2005, with the court upholding Ms Tamakloe’s equitable interest in the property.

Subsequent proceedings showed that the earlier suits were conducted against Mr Rabiu Babalola in his personal capacity and not on behalf of all beneficiaries of the estate. In 2009, other children of the late Mr Gbadamoshie Babalola obtained Letters of Administration from the High Court at Agona Swedru, followed by vesting assents distributing the estate.

Acting for the beneficiaries, Mr Muri Babalola later commenced a fresh action in the High Court, seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession, damages for trespass and an injunction. In June, 2013, the court dismissed an application to strike out the suit as an abuse of process, ruling that the question of whether all seven children of the deceased owner consented to the sale of the house had not been conclusively settled and required evidence. That suit remains pending.

In recent weeks, members of the Babalola family say tensions around the property have intensified following police involvement. According to the family, a son of Ms Mariam Ahmed, who was the second defendant in the original Circuit Court case, signed an undertaking at a police station in connection with the disputed property. The family maintains that the individual who signed the undertaking is not a party to the pending High Court suit.

They further allege that around the same period, several persons associated with the Babalola family were arrested by the police and accused of trespassing on the disputed property. The family says no detailed explanation was given at the time beyond the allegation of trespass, even though the matter is before the court.

The family contends that the arrests of their relatives and associates was meant to create pressure around the property and discourage them from going near it.

The family has also alleged that portions of the building were pulled down earlier this year while the case remained pending.

READ ALSO: Architecture Alliance Calls for Strict Enforcement of Building Laws to Safeguard Lives

When the matter was called on January, 13, counsel for the Babalola family drew the court’s attention to reports that work was continuing on the property despite the pending injunction application. In response, the presiding judge stated that all parties were aware of the legal consequences of any conduct that could be interpreted as interference with property under litigation.

The court cautioned the parties to refrain from actions that could undermine its authority or affect the determination of the case and adjourned the matter to February, 4, 2026.

Despite the caution, the complainant’s side maintains that workers were again seen on the property on January, 16, carrying out construction-related activity.