AGYEI SEFA & ANOR VS OWUSU AFRIYIE & ANOR

OWUSU (MS. ) JSC: -

The plaintiffs’ claims as set out in their Amended writ of summons and statement of claim are: a. “A declaration of their family title and ownership of all that piece and parcel of land at Suhum/Akwadum road or Agyekumhene Akura bounded by the properties of Ohenemaah Fosua, Op.

Kwasi Donkor, Mame Fokuo, Abena Dapaah, Mame Ataa, Kofi Afi, Op.

Agyeman, Mame Asantewaah, Op.

Kwabena Gyasi and Apea Adu; b. Recovery of Possession of the land described in paragraph (1) supra.

c. Recovery of possession of House No. EF/A 140 Effiduase.

d. Perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant his agents, workmen and all persons claiming any interest through them from entering the land to do anything inconsistent with the plaintiffs and their family right to peaceable enjoyment of their land”. In their 12-paragraph statement of claim which accompanied their writ of summons, the plaintiffs/appellants/appellants (herein referred to as plaintiffs) averred that they are the grandsons of the late Nana Agyekumhene who acquired the land in dispute and bring the action for the Bretuo and Agona families of Effiduase, New Juaben.

The plaintiffs averred further that, when Kwadwo Boateng the customarily successor of the late Agyekumhene died, the line of succession of the latter became extinct and Yaw Brefo was appointed caretaker of the estate of Agyekumhene.

The plaintiffs continued that, Yaw Brefo died in 1985 and the children and grandchildren of Agyekumhene appointed 1st defendant as the caretaker of the estate of Nana Agyekumhene.

It is the case of the plaintiffs that, 1st defendant has been selling the land he was appointed to oversee to developers and has been warned to desist from disposing off the land but 1st defendant has not paid any heed to the said warning.

Rather the 1st defendant had sold portions of the land in dispute to 2nd defendant.

In addition, the 1st defendant had let out some rooms in House No. EF/A 140, Effiduase which he was allowed to occupy when he was appointed the caretaker of the estate of Nana Agyekumhene to tenants hence this action.

The defendants/respondents/respondents (hereinafter referred to as defendants) reacted on receipt of plaintiffs’ writ of summons and statement of claim.

In particular, the defendants averred that, plaintiffs being the paternal grandchildren of the late Nana Agyekumhene have no capacity to bring the instant action.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs’Bretuo and Agona families have no interest in t