Wednesday, February 28, 2024
HomeTravel and TourismDHM Ltd. Exposed As Chinese MD Uses UNSIGNED Sublease Document To 'Steal'...

DHM Ltd. Exposed As Chinese MD Uses UNSIGNED Sublease Document To ‘Steal’ Property @ cantonment

…Police Service Sued For Abetting Crime

Incontrovertible documentary evidence available to this paper has painted a far different picture of the ongoing controversies over the true owners of parcels of land at Cantonment near the AU Village, (Plot M1, M2, M3 and M4).

The said plots of land have been in contention with groups laying claim over them; leading to the use of land guards amid demolition of fence wall built around the land.

This paper had carried out publications on the matter.

However, its further checks as regards the current development which was necessitated by the continuous construction works on Plots M3, M4 by DHM Construction Limited, revealed that DHM Construction Limited ignored a recent Court Ruling and an Injunction which prohibit them from working on the said land.

It would be recall that DHM Construction Limited, managed by a Chinese National Weila Deng, and who was accused of unduly taken over the disputed land by using Chinese thugs and local land guards amid police protection, denied any wrongdoing and insisted ownership over the land.

Weila Deng (DHM Construction Limited) claimed to have acquired the said parcels of land in 2020, long before the other claimant made his purchase and that by virtue of that, they (DHM) are the rightful owners.

Meanwhile, a High Court hearing the matter which was filed by DHM Construction Limited and others against the other party, ruled that, DHM Construction Limited and Others (Plaintiffs) presented an unsigned sublease document which they acquired from the 3rd Defendant (Lands Commission), being the common grantor of both the Plaintiffs and Defendants.

This paper was at a loss upon establishing that, DHM Construction which claimed to have all the documents over the said property is only relying on an unsigned sublease to lay claim over the land.

The ruling which was delivered on August 19, 2022 in SUIT NO. LD/0506/2022 also stated that the Defendants presented an executed sublease as well as a land certificate from the Lands Commission.

“The Plaintiffs/applicants own exhibits I indicates that the 1st Defendant was in possession of plot numbers M1 and M2 and that those plots would be replaced for the plaintiffs following multiple mediation engagements; the 1st defendant was therefore to maintain his current occupation. Until evidence is led to set aside the land certificate of the 1st defendant, it is the view of the court that it would not be just to injunct the 1st defendant,” the Court stated.

The High Court, in that ruling refused the Injunction Application brough against the Defendants by DHM Construction Limited over Plot M1 and M2, and ordered that the Plaintiffs, the 2nd Defendant, their agents, servants, workmen, privies, cohorts, agents, hirelings, assigns are restrained from trespassing or carrying out any development or construction on Plot numbers M3 and M4.

However, a visit to the site has revealed that DHM Construction Limited is earnestly working on Plots M3 and M4 against the orders of the Court.

Workers of DHM Construction as at Wednesday October 5, 2022 when a team of journalists visited the site, were working.

The Chinese national who is the Managing Director of DHM Construction, Weila Deng, our sources have revealed, also owns myriads of companies in the country and has close relations with political powers which made her ‘untouchable.’

It has also been established that, the Defendants who have respect for the Court orders as well as processes, and for that matter halt any form of construction on the land, served a penal notice to commence Contempt proceedings against DHM Construction Limited for their refusal to adhere to the orders of the Court.

Meanwhile, speaking to some residents living close to the disputed area, they averred that land guards and thugs of Chinese origin are on constant guard and have caused chaos in the area by using bulldozers to demolish the fence wall he erected around Plots M1 and M2.

This paper has gathered that the activities of these Chinese, was reported to the Ghana Police but due to the fact that the Chinese are well-connected, the police could not pursue the matter further and are rather providing protection for these Chinese nationals to perpetrate their acts.

Police officials, according to residents, are being used as security guards for these Chinese and some officials of the Ghana Police Service have been deployed to give a 24hours protection to the Chinese nationals to carry out construction projects on the land.

Although the police are aware of the fact that the High Court in determining the matter brought before it, refused to injunct the 1st Defendant in respect of Plots M1 and M2, and that the 1st Defendant is to maintain his current occupation of Plots M1 and M2, they (police) keep harassing the 1st Defendant.

This paper can confirm that, last week Tuesday, when the 1st Defendant was conveying blocks to his site (M1 and M2), an order was given from the Property Fraud Unit instructing the owners from offloading the blocks on their own land, and that if they do, they would be arrested.

True to the threats from the Property Frauds Unit, policemen were dispatched to the site to intimidate and harass the owners from working.

Available information which this paper confirmed, indicate that policemen run shifts at the site with the sole aim of protecting Weila Deng and her people to continue working on Plots M3 and M4 against the court Injunction, and prevent the Defendant from working on his land (M1 and M2).

It is interesting however to note that policemen who runs shifts at the site usually come in three batches; Morning, Afternoon and in the Evening, and each schedule has its own group of policemen assigned to carry out the ‘land guard’ duties for Weila Deng and her cronies.

The activities of the police are preventing the 1st Defendant, owner of Plots M1 and M2 per the Court ruling “The Plaintiffs/applicants own exhibits I indicates that the 1st Defendant was in possession of plot numbers M1 and M2 and that those plots would be replaced for the plaintiffs following multiple mediation engagements; the 1st Defendant was therefore to maintain his current occupation. Until evidence is led to set aside the land certificate of the 1st defendant, it is the view of the court that it would not be just to injunct the 1st defendant,” from working.

This, according to close source to the owner, is affecting business.

This paper has also gathered that, the MD of DHM Construction Limited, Weila Deng has installed security camera on the building she is constructing on Plots M3 and M4 which she uses to monitor activities on Plots M1 and M2, which currently and per the Court ruling is still a property of the 1st Defendant.

This development residents in the area believe is inappropriate and the security agencies must intervene because “you cannot erect a security camera on your property to be watching another person’s property or privacy,” a resident said.

Police Service Sued for Contempt 

Meanwhile, the Property Fraud Unit of the Ghana Police Service has been sued for supporting some Chinese Nationals to ignore a High Court ruling and also to flout an Injunction over parcels of land at Cantonment, near AU Village.

Three officers of the Property Fraud Unit at the Police Headquarters in Accra; Joseph Mensah, Alhassan Bawa and Agnes Borboo (Respondents) are being dragged to court for preventing the Applicant from accessing his land whiles permitting the Plaintiffs in Suit no. LD/0506/2022 to construct their building on M3 and M4.

According to the Applicant who holds a land title certificate on Plots M1 and M2, some police officers were on M3 and M4 aiding and abetting the Plaintiffs to continue development and construction on the land even though all parties have been restrained from dealing with same.

Meanwhile, DHM Construction Limited according to sources have been using these police to harass and intimidate the Defendant over their plots of land even though the Court dismissed the Application brought against the Defendant was dismissed.

In his Application for Committal for Contempt, the Applicant who was the Defendant in in SUIT NO. LD/0506/2022, indicated that ordinarily he would not have served the police with a copy of the injunction application but events leading to the injunction ruling compelled the applicants to serve the respondents with a copy of the court ruling.

The Applicant averred that, prior to the said court proceedings, Respondents under the disguise of maintaining public peace had stationed armed policemen on plots M1 and M2 to prevent him from accessing his land whiles the Respondents permitted the Plaintiffs in suit no. LD/0506/2022 to construct their building on M3 and M4.

“That despite the service of the injunction ruling on the Respondents, the respondents proceeded to arrest workmen of the Applicant on Plots M1 and M2 on several occasions. In most of these instances, applicant’s lawyers were compelled to go to the Property Fraud Unit of the Ghana Police Service for them to be released on Bail. That in one instance after the arrest of the applicant’s workmen, Applicant’s lawyers visited the respondents in their office, Property Fraud Unit of the Ghana Police Service, Headquarters, Accra and again submitted copies of the injunction ruling to the police.”

The Applicant went on further to indicate that the Respondents admitted having knowledge of the injunction ruling but intimated that applicant cannot proceed to go unto the land because there is a pending appeal against the injunction ruling.

He also maintained that the Respondents (The Police) have arrogated to themselves powers that they do not have by barring the applicant from entering his own land despite an injunction ruling to the contrary.

It has become obvious that the Respondents are using apparatus of the state to intimidate and restrain applicant from going unto his land when they know very well that the High Court has ruled that the applicant cannot be restrained from occupying plots M1 and M2.

According to the Applicant, on 5th October, 2022, the 3rd Respondent (Agnes Borboo) called the him on a phone and threatened him to stay of M1 and M2 otherwise she will let the police arrest his workmen again on the land.

According to the Application filed against the police, the Respondents in abuse of their office as police officers, have blatantly disobeyed the orders of the court and have evinced an intention to overreach the Applicant’s interest and thereby bringing the administration of justice in disrepute through their continuous disobedience and total disregard for the orders of the court.

The Applicant in this Application supported his motion with evidence including a copy of writ of summons and statement of claim, copy of the Injunction application, copy of the statement of defence and the affidavit in opposition to the injunction filed by Applicant, copy of the court’s ruling on the injunction, copy of the proof of service and a conversation between the Applicant and the 3rd Respondent copied onto a pen drive.

By: KayAGBENYEGA

RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

Recent Comments