ADOLPH TETTEH ADJEI v. ANAS AREMEYAW ANAS & ANOR

JUDGMENT

MENSAH JSC:

This case has had a very chequered history.

On record, the plaintiff/respondent/respondent herein [infra], simply referred to as the respondent, caused to be issued in the registry of the High Court [Land Division], Accra, a writ of summons, claiming the under-listed judicial reliefs against the 1st defendant/appellant/appellant [referred to as the appellant] and the 2nd defendant, namely:

a. Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land in extent 2,00 acres (0.81 hectare) more or less and bounded on the North East by land measuring 267.4 feet more or less and on the South East by proposed road measuring 294.6 feet more or less on the South West by land measuring 296 feet more or less on the North West by land measuring 298.3 feet more or less and situate at East La Dadekotopon in the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana.

b. Damages for trespass to plaintiff’s land described above.

c. Recovery of possession of the plaintiff’s land aforesaid.

d. Perpetual injunction against the defendants, their servants, agents, assigns, workmen and all those claiming through them from entering on the subject land and carrying out any construction works on same or interfering with the subject land in any manner whatsoever or disturbing the plaintiff’s peaceful occupation and possession of same.

e. Costs.

f. Any other relief(s) that this honourable court may deem fit.

Filed the same day alongside the writ, was a statement of claim that appear on pp 1-5 of Vol.1 of the record of appeal [roa]. Additionally, there was filed, a motion for the interlocutory injunction against the defendants. See: pp 6-29 Vol. 1 [roa].

The appellant and the 2nd defendant upon being served with the processes, entered a joint appearance through their lawyer, and filed a statement of defence. In response to the motion for interlocutory injunction, the appellant and the 2nd defendant filed an affidavit in opposition as well as Counsel’s statement of case containing his legal arguments in opposition to the application.

The statement of defence which the appellant filed, did not only substantially deny the claim of the respondent but also raised, inter alia, the propriety of the land title certificate the respondent acquired over the land, the subject matter of dispute. The appellant accused the respondent of obtaining the certificate through fraud and, therefore, counterclaimed as follows: