The management of La Pleasure Beach has sued Hotel Investments (Ghana) Limited, La Palm Beach Hotel Limited and the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) at the High Court in Accra over the demolition of its management office and other structures at the beachfront.

In a writ of summons and statement of claim, Stanley Anyetei Nunoo, who identifies himself as Chairman of the beach’s Management Committee, alleges that the defendants participated in or facilitated the demolition and unlawfully interfered with the committee’s operations.

The committee is seeking declarations affirming its authority to manage, control, regulate and license activities at La Pleasure Beach, an injunction against further interference, restoration of possession and compensation for alleged property damage and business losses.

According to the statement of claim, security personnel from the Ghana Police Service and the Ghana Armed Forces entered the beachfront at dawn on or about October 2, 2026, and demolished the committee’s management office and other structures.

The plaintiff alleges that equipment, furniture, files, records and other property were destroyed or removed, while staff and licensed operators were chased away.

He contends that the operation was conducted without a court order, warrant, prior notice or an opportunity for the committee to be heard.

The suit asks the court to determine the legality of the demolition and the alleged involvement of the defendants.

Committee relies on 2022 court order

The plaintiff bases the committee’s authority on a Court of Appeal order dated July 21, 2022, which, according to the statement of claim, dissolved an interim management committee established by the High Court in April 2013.

Nunoo says the current committee has managed the beach, issued licences to operators, regulated activities and generated revenue over the years.

He is asking the court to formally affirm its authority over the beachfront.

The suit also challenges the interests of Hotel Investments (Ghana) Limited and La Palm Beach Hotel Limited, which operate Labadi Beach Hotel and La Palm Beach Hotel respectively.

The plaintiff argues that the two companies have no proprietary or possessory interest in La Pleasure Beach or its management, apart from any access licence granted by the committee.

The court is being asked to determine the parties’ respective rights and whether the defendants had a lawful basis to interfere with the committee’s management and possession.

SSNIT’s concerns over encroachment

The statement of claim references an October 2, 2026, media release in which SSNIT reportedly sought the intervention of the National Security Council Secretariat over what it described as persistent unlawful occupation, encroachment and unauthorised activities on the beachfront adjoining Labadi Beach Hotel and La Palm Royal Beach Hotel.

According to the document, SSNIT said the hotels formed part of its investment portfolio and that it had a responsibility to protect those investments for the benefit of contributors and pensioners.

The plaintiff cites the release in support of his allegation that the defendants jointly participated in or facilitated the demolition.

The available court material, however, does not include detailed responses from the defendants to the claims.

Seeks compensation and injunction

In addition to declarations on its management authority, the committee is seeking an injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and representatives from taking over the beach or interfering with its management and possession.

It also wants the court to order the restoration of possession and management to the committee and an independent valuation of property allegedly damaged, destroyed, removed or lost during the operation.

The plaintiff is claiming compensation for property damage, lost revenue, loss of business and disruption of operations, alongside aggravated and exemplary damages, interest and legal costs.

The suit places before the court questions about the committee’s legal authority, the rights and interests of the hotel companies and SSNIT, and the circumstances under which the demolition was carried out.

The writ and statement of claim contain the plaintiff’s allegations; they do not establish that any defendant has been found liable. The material available does not include the defendants’ responses or indicate that the court has ruled on the merits of the case.