Adams v Banini

LAMPTEY JA.

Sometime in January 1966 the Onamroko Adain family made a customary grant of a plot of land at Tarta Hill, Accra to Peace Aku Banini (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff). In 1977 the above transaction was reduced into writing and an indenture thereon was duly executed by all the parties. The plaintiff duly stamped and registered the indenture. The plaintiff planted four pillars to mark and demarcate the boundaries of her plot of land. She also engaged the services of Albert Nyame Ashley, PW1 as a caretaker over her of plot land.

Sometime in 1982 Ashley, PW1, noticed that building operations had been commenced on the plaintiff’s land. Ashley promptly reported the matter to the plaintiff to stop work and to leave the land but his warning was ignored by the defendant who continued to carry on the building operations. On the third day, the plaintiff was informed by Ashley that a building was being put up on her plot of land. She also warned the building contractor to stop work. Her warning was treated with contempt and ignored. She caused to be placed on the land a signboard with “Stop work.” Since the building contractor persisted in continuing the building operations and the act of trespass, the plaintiff sued George Adams (hereinafter called the “defendant”) who had purchased a plot of land adjoining the land of the plaintiff and had engaged the building contractor to put up the offending dwelling house on a part of plaintiff’s plot of land. The plaintiff claimed against the defendant the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons; in particular, the plaintiff sought a declaration of title to the land described in the writ of summons under head (a).

In his statement of defence, the defendant claimed that he obtained his title from the Onamroko Adain family; that in demarcating the common boundary between his plot of land and that of the plaintiff, the surveyor had unwittingly trespassed into the plaintiff’s plot by some 22 feet. This admission notwithstanding, the case proceeded to trial because the defendant had invoked the provisions of Act 2 in support of his case. At the end of the hearing on the merits, the case of the defendant was rejected. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for all the reliefs he had sought and claimed, except that the plaintiff was not awarded damages for the trespass committed by the defendant. I must observe that the plaintiff had not cross-appealed against this omission on the part of the trial