Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
There is no dispute about the fact that the parties in this case have a common
grantor which is the State Housing Company Ltd. The Plaintiff’s case is that
it was originally based close to Achimota Secondary School and its
expansion was constrained by limitation of space. It therefore acquired
additional land at New Achimota for the purposes of expansion for
construction of further classrooms, residential apartments and bungalows
for staff. It fenced the said land it acquired and put a gate to it with padlocks.
Without the knowledge of the Plaintiff, the Defendants invaded and broke
into the wall and started erecting illegal structures. The Plaintiff approached
the Defendants politely and told them to stop the trespassory acts but the
Defendants failed to pay heed. The Plaintiff therefore instituted this action
claiming the following reliefs:
a) Declaration of title to the piece or parcel of land situate at New
Achimota, bounded on the north by an open space measuring 398
feet more or less, on the south by unnumbered plots measuring 388
feet more or less, on the east by plots Nos 11, 12, 14, 16, 6th street
measuring 409 feet more or less, on the west by plots Nos. 9, 11, 13,
th street measuring 309 feet more or less, comprising an approximate
area of 2.93 of an acre.
b) Special and general damages for trespass.
c) Particulars of special damages:
i. Transportation
ii. Legal expenses
iii. Petty expenses
d) An order of perpetual injunction (Prohibitory and Mandatory)
against the Defendants, their agents, heirs, assigns, privies and
workmen.
e) An order of ejectment and recovery of possession.
f) Interest at the prevailing bank rate from the date of cause of action
up to date of payment.
g) Costs.
In defence, the 2
nd Defendant claims to be the equitable owner of the land
the subject matter of dispute. The 1st Defendant claims to be the bona fide
owner of the disputed land which it acquired from the 2nd Defendant and
same has been confirmed by the State Housing Company. They both denied
trespassing on the Plaintiff’s land and stated that the Plaintiff has not
acquired any land from the State Housing Company and has no lease
covering the land but rather occupy the disputed land with the permission
of the State Housing Company. The Defendants counterclaim for:
1. Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and
being at Achimota Housing Estate known as plot No. 6A, 5th street,
covering and con