ACHIMOTA PREPARATORY & J.H.S. v. FOURTH LUCKY ESTATE COMPANY IBISTEK

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