ALEX NYARKO & ANOR v. LOMOTEY & ANOR

F. G. KORBIEH, J. A.

This appeal emanates from the High Court, Accra and the judgment appealed against is dated 7/7/2011. The brief background to the appeal is that on the

17/7/2000, the 1st plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter only referred to as the 1st respondent) sued the 1st defendant/appellant (hereinafter only referred to as the 1st respondent) in the court below claiming from him the following reliefs:

i) declaration of title to all that parcel of land known as Plot No. 70 containing an approximate area of 0.40 acre situate at Abeka National Sports Complex Residential Area in Accra lying to the south-west of a high tension line

bounded on the north by Plot No. 71, on the south by Plot No. 69, on the west by a proposed road and on the east by National Sports Complex boundary which is more particularly delineated on Plan No. LD 9271/AC 2786 thereon and shown edged pink;

ii) recovery of possession of the said plot of land and an order that the building erected on the said plot be removed forthwith;

iii) damages for trespass; and

iv) an injunction restraining the 1st appellant, whether by himself, his servants or agents from interfering with the said plot in any way whatsoever.

In the statement of claim accompanying the writ of summons, the 1st appellant had averred, among other things, that he had been granted a ninety-nine-year lease by the Government of Ghana, acting through the chairman of the Lands Commission commencing on the 1/1/1985 and he had taken possession of the land; that in 1997 he had had one Albert Ashitey Nyame prosecuted for trespass on the land and the latter was convicted in 2001; that when he realized that construction work was still continuing despite the conviction of the afore-mentioned Albert Ashitey Nyame, he asked the workers to stop work and it was then the workers brought the 1st appellant in as the person doing the construction; that the 1st appellant attempted to settle the matter with him but negotiations broke down and hence he brought the action to stop the 1st appellant from continuing to trespass on his land.

In his statement of defence, the 1st appellant had either denied the material allegations of fact made by the 1st respondent or put him to strict proof of those allegations. He had also averred as follows: that he had to see the lease vesting title in the disputed land in the 1st respondent together with the instrument “vesting the said plot of land in the Republic of Ghana as against the Traditional Auth