Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs instituted this action as far back in 2009. So for almost 15 years the court
has been saddle with this case. Ordinarily, the facts in this case was simple issues of
trespass. There is no evidence of interlocutory appeal nor petition to suggest the possible
reason for the delay. I personally do not see the need for this delay and whether or not
this has been beneficial to the litigants, can best be determine by them. There has been
feet dragging in this case and the plaintiff who called only two witnesses by way of
witness statement had the chance to testify in May, 2020 when I assume duty in this court.
This is regrettable.
Per their amended writ of summons the plaintiffs claim the following reliefs against the
defendants;
i) Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land situate at Anloga and
bounded;
On one side by Zotra family land and Adranyi family land.
On the 2nd side by Dagbui family land.
On the 3rd side by the property of Afafa Akuina which went to Fiawuoo.
On the 4th side by the property of the Agbenoxevi Tamakloe and Vida Degbey.
ii) Damages for trespass.
iii) Recovery of possession.
iv) Injunction
According to the plaintiffs, they are the head and principal members respectively of the
Tamakloe family of Anloga and thus, bring this action on their own behalf as well as on
behalf of the Tamakloe family.
It is their story that, the disputed land formed part of the property of one Akuina which
he received as a result of property sharing of Amega Leh to his children.
According to plaintiffs, the said Akuina had only one female child called Afafa and upon
the death of Akuina the land devolved unto her.
They continued that, Afafa got married twice in her life time. First to Fiawoo and had
children. Then to the family of Tamakloe and had children. Upon her death her land
devolved unto her children from both marriages. Accordingly, the land was shared to
the two sides, the Fiawoo and Tamakloe.
They claim the disputed portion falls within the portion shared to the Tamakloe’s. They
contend that they have built houses on portions of the shared land and had been in
possession for many years and the remaining undeveloped site is what is in dispute. That
recently, the Tamakloe family noted that the defendants have trespassed unto that vacant
portion and begun building. Nothing by way of protest could stop them. Plaintiffs
continued that the conduct of the defendants are unlawful and constitute tresp