ALHASSAN MOHAMMED v. ABDUL RAHAMAN ABUKARI

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. This judgment relates to land.

2. The plaintiff in this case is a businessman whiles the defendant is a driver. Both are

ordinarily resident in Tamale. On 21st December, 2021 the plaintiff instituted this

action against the defendant for the following reliefs, which I shall reproduce

verbatim:

“a. Declaration that plot no. 112, Kalariga Residential Area, Extension Block A

is the bonafide property of plaintiff.

b. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents,

servants, workmen and any other person claiming through him from

dealing with the said plot in whatsoever manner or interfering the

plaintiff’s ownership and possession of same.

c. Recovery of possession.

d. Damages for trespass.

e. Costs including solicitor’s fees.”

2. The defendant pleaded not liable to plaintiff’s claim and on 11th April, 2022 he filed a

Defence and Counterclaimed for trespass. Further in his Counterclaim, defendant

pleaded for special damages in the sum of GHS29,150.00. Plaintiff, on 28th April, 2022,

filed a Reply disputing defendant’s Defence and Counterclaim. On 4th May, 2022 the

defendant also filed a Rejoinder to plaintiff’s Reply.

3. Before, I proceed to the respective cases of the parties herein, it is important to point

out that the land in dispute has been a subject matter between the parties’

representatives in the case intituled No. A1/4/13: Mohammed Alhassan v 1. Wahabu

Yakubu, 2. Amandu Alhassan Niendow, 3. Zulfawu Abukari and 4. Issahaku Abukari at the

District Court, Tamale. The detailed issues of this case is unknown to this court, but

parties therein claim that it is yet to be determined. The last time parties went to court

was on 25th October, 2012. Several attempts at settling have also failed. There is

reasonable certainty that since nothing had happened on the said suit as far back as

25th October, 2012 the suit might have been affected by Registrar’s Summons and

same struck out for want of prosecution, see Or. 27 rule 3 of CI 59. The plaintiff herein

on returning from Italy, therefore, instituted this instant case. In my opinion, the

plaintiff has a right to either relist the old case or institute this action and I think this

action is appropriate since the proper parties are suited.

PLAINTIFF’S CASE

4. The plaintiff’s case is that sometime in 2002, he acquired plot no. 112, Kalariga

Residential Area, Extension Block A, Tamale from Zoodohi-Naa, Adam Fuseini, a

sub chie