ADJETEY SOLOMON VENTURES v. EMMANUEL AFFRAM & ORS

JUDGEMENT

On 22nd August 2008, the Plaintiff issued a writ against some trespassers on its land. The Defendants were served by substitution. Thereafter, the Defendants filed their entry of appearance and indicated their real names in place of trespassers. The writ was thus amended to reflect the names of the Defendants. Eventually, the Plaintiff on 7th May 2015 amended the writ with the following endorsement:

1. A Declaration of title to ALL that piece or parcel of land situate and lying at Oyibi, Accra and covering an approximate area of 23.70 acres.

2. Recovery of possession of the portion the Defendants are allegedly occupying.

3. Damages for trespass.

4. Perpetual Injunction against the Defendants

The first to the sixth Defendants filed a common Statement of Defence denying the Plaintiff’s claim.

They included the counterclaim below to their defence:

1. Declaration of title to six separate pieces or parcels of land each containing an approximate area of 0.16 acre.

2. Damages for trespass.

3. Recovery of possession.

4. Perpetual Injunction restraining the Plaintiff, its agents, assigns and workmen from ever dealing with the Plaintiff’s land.

The Co-Defendant on his part filed a separate Statement of Defence and counterclaimed for:

i. Declaration of title to the land contained in judgment plan marked ‘MLA2’ and described as Nii Adjin We land.

ii. Recovery of possession of any portion of the said land trespassed unto by the Plaintiff or its agents or assigns.

iii. Perpetual Injunction restraining the Plaintiff, its agents and assigns from further dealing with co-Defendant’s land.

After the close of pleadings, the following issues were adopted by the Court.

i. Whether or not the parcels of land granted to the Defendants by the Nii Adjin We Family forms part of the land acquired from the Odaiteitse Family of Nungua?

ii. Whether or not the Nii Adjin We Family has an immediate interest it could alienate to the Defendants?

iii. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to its reliefs?

iv. Any other issues arising out of the pleadings?

The Defendants were originally seven, but on 9th March 2010, the Co-Defendant was joined to the suit. The Court ordered a composite plan to be drawn after the super-imposition of the parties’ site plans. This was done and the surveyor appeared in Court to tender his report. The lawyers for the parties got the opportunity to cross examine the surveyor after tendering his report. From the composite plan