AMA BONSU v. YAW BOAHENE
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- E. K. AYEBI
- GERTRUDE TORKORNOO
- ANGELINA M. DOMAKYAAREH
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved a dispute over ownership and possession of a plot of land on which the defendant's chop bar operated. The plaintiff argued he allowed the defendant's grandmother to use the land temporarily, which the defendant disputed by asserting longstanding use and a different grantor. The trial court ruled for the plaintiff, and this decision was upheld on appeal. The appellate court found that the defendant's case was contradictory and unsupported by credible evidence, while the plaintiff's claim was backed by substantial evidence including a lease document and consistent witness testimony. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the trial court's judgment.
JUDGEMENT
AYEBI, JA
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Kumasi Circuit Court (2) dated 28th October 2013, by the defendant. At the trial court, the plaintiff claimed the following reliefs:
a. Declaration that the plaintiff is the assignee/owner of Plot No. 20 Block “B”, Suame Tarkwa, Kumasi.
b. An order for recovery of possession.
c. An order of injunction restraining the defendant, her agents, workmen and assigns from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff’s ownership and enjoyment of the subject property.
2. The case put forward by the plaintiff in support of his claim is that he is the assignee of Plot No. 20 Block “B”, Suame Tarkwa, Kumasi from Opanin Yaw Kyere and his family. He tendered a copy of the assignment in his favour as Exhibit A with the consent to assign by the Lands Commission. The said Plot No. 20 Block “B” shares boundary with the Offinso Road in the South-West; Plot 19 in the North-West; Plot 28 in the North-East and Plot 21 in the South-East.
3. According to the plaintiff, he put up a storey building made up of stores on a large portion of the plot and reserved the undeveloped portion for an out-house later. But at the request of Madam Ama Asantewaa (deceased) grandmother of the defendant, he permitted her to operate a chop-bar on the undeveloped portion without any demand for rent. The only condition to the licence was that she was not to put up a permanent structure on the land.
4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that because of the cordial relationship developed between him and Madam Ama Asantewaa, she showered him with gifts of cloths, sheep, wrist-watches and others for the 19 years she operated on the land. When Madam Ama Asantewaa fell sick and was advised by her Doctor to stop working with fire, she requested him to allow the defendant to continue to operate the chop bar on the land. The plaintiff said he agreed to the request and following on the footsteps of her grandmother, defendant also gave him gifts occasionally or annually. But when he demanded his land to put up the outhouse, the defendant laid claim to it and summoned him before the Magazine Mechanical Association that he had denied her the right to paint her structure. He therefore sued the defendant.
5. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and defended the action in an amended statement of defence. Her case is that her late grandmother was operating on that portion of the land before the plaintiff acquired his plot and