ABDUL-AZIZ MUMEEN v. ABASS SAMED, MOHAMED WUMBEI AND AWAL SAMED

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. This judgment relates to land. This judgment should have come way earlier. In fact,

it has been over a decade in waiting. The plaintiff after almost 10years in attempt to

settle this matter has now revived this action.

2. This case started on 23rd March, 2012 when the plaintiff took out a writ of summons

against defendants, jointly and severally, for the following:

“a. A declaration that plaintiff is the lawful owner of plot nos. 62 and 63

Tuunaayili Residential Area Block A, Tamale.

b. An order of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove any

illegal material deposited or any structure erected on the said plot nos. 62

and 63, Tuunaayili Residential Area Block A, Tamale.

c. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, his agents,

servants, workmen and any other person claiming under them from

interfering in whatsoever from plaintiff’s plots.

c. General damages for trespass.”

3. On 5th April, 2012 the defendants pleaded not liable to plaintiff’s claim. Thereafter,

parties stipulated to settle. However, attempts at settling have taken all these years,

until 26th May, 2022 when plaintiff informed the court that settlement had broken

down and he intends to proceed.

4. I must say that settlement does not have to take that long. At best, 30days from the

date parties intend to settle and 30days extra where parties indicate to the court that

they are almost at settling, with limits set by the court. See Or. 25 of CI 59 (as

amended).

PLAINTIFF’S CASE

5. The plaintiff’s case is contained in his statement of claim and witness statement as

well as exhibits so tendered. According to the plaintiff, between 1995 and 1996, he

expressed interest in buying plots at Kanvilli Tuunayilli, Tamale which were going

for GHS12.00 per plot. He paid GHS24.00 to Tuu-Naa Issah Abdulai and allocation

papers for plots no. 62 and 63 were issued, dated 18th April, 1996. Later, he applied

to the Lands Commission for a 99year lease. He indicated that he had been in a

peaceful possession of the said land, until he noticed a structure on plot no. 62 and

teak trees on plot no. 63. His checks indicated that the defendants were those putting

up the structure on plot 62, so he informed Naa-Dua, an opinion leader within the

area, to call the defendants to order. This, however, yielded no positive outcome. The

matter then went to the Regent of Kanvilli, then to Regent of Gulkpegu and to the

Kampakuya-Naa,