GH - ABDUL MUMUNI BAGIGAH VS VINCENT DEKU & ANOR

The plaintiff and the 1st defendant assert rival claims to a property situate at New Weija and purchased by both from a common vendor.

Unlike the plaintiff, there is evidence of overt acts of possession and occupation by the 1st defendant.

The plaintiff will only succeed in an action for trespass against the 1st defendant if he proves that as between him and the 1st defendant, the right of possession is vested in him.

In the absence of proof of right of immediate possession by the plaintiff and adverse possession by the 1st defendant the dispute should be resolved in favour of the 1st defendant who is in occupation.

Possession is defined in OSBORN’S CONCISE LAW DICTIONARY 8th edition as physical detention coupled with the intention to hold the thing detained as one’s own.

Possession has two elements; the physical possession of a thing and the intention to appropriate to oneself the exclusive use of the thing possessed.

Possession is prima facie evidence of ownership.

A person is said to be in possession of a land when that person is in occupation or has some kind of physical control of the land.

The kind of conduct which amounts to possession and occupation, and the fact that proof of long possession or occupation is prima facie proof of ownership, has been determined by our courts in a plethora of cases such as ANTO v. MENSAH [1958] 3WALR, WUTA OFEI v. DANQUAH 1961 GLR, MIEH v. ASUBONTENG [1963] 2 GLR, NUNEKPEKU v. AMETEPE [1966] GLR, AIDOO v. ADJEI [1976] 1GLR, and ASARE v. APPAU II [1984-86] 1 GLR.

Building a fence wall around a piece of land, cultivating it and using it for pasture, having a key to a house on the land or even erecting pillars on the land are some of the acts which have been determined as examples of acts which amounts to possession.

2nd defendant was the original owner of the property in dispute and he has been using the same property as security for his indebtedness to various people, consequently at a particular point in time between 2006 and 2008, the plaintiff, the 1st defendant and DW1 all laid claims to the same property against monies they have paid to the 2nd defendant.

The 1st defendant paid off DW1 the money that 2nd defendant had taken from him with the hope of releasing the property in dispute for his full benefit, occupation and possession, only to be summoned to this court by the plaintiff claiming against him the following reliefs; 1. A declaration of title to and possession of all that piece or parc