Try asking the following...
JUDGEMENT
[1] This is an Appeal arising from a land dispute between the Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) and the
Defendants/Appellants (hereinafter “the Defendants”), concerning a tract of land situated at Mmofra Akyenim in the Komenda Edina Eguafo Abirem District of the Central Region.
[2] The Plaintiff, claiming to be the head of the George Amissang Family of Elmina and Cape Coast, instituted the original action in both her personal and representative capacities. She asserted that the land in question was acquired in the late 19th century by her ancestor, George Amissang, a lawyer by profession, and that her Family had since exercised continuous and undisturbed ownership thereof. In support of her claim, she relied on historical leases, including one executed in 1922, and judicial decisions rendered in 1948 and 1949 which, she contended, affirmed her Family’s title.
[3] The Plaintiff alleged that the 1st Defendant had trespassed onto her Family land, and, despite initial overtures to regularize his occupation, failed to honour agreed terms. She further claimed that the 1st Defendant resumed development activities on the land, prompting her to initiate legal proceedings against him. The 2nd Defendant, a corporate entity currently in occupation of the land, was subsequently joined to the suit but did not file a defence.
[4] The 1st Defendant, in his Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, denied the Plaintiff’s assertions and contended that the land in dispute is stool land belonging to the Eku Aowim Royal Stool of Mboframa Akyinim.
He maintained that he acquired a valid lease from the said Stool in 1990 and entered into possession thereafter.
[5] The 3rd Defendant, representing the Eku Aowim Family, supported the 1st Defendant’s position. While acknowledging that portions of land were historically granted to the Plaintiff’s Family by his Family, the 3rd Defendant argued that the Plaintiff’s Family had since overstepped those bounds. The 3rd Defendant relied on a Statutory Declaration registered in 1973, as well as a history of unchallenged grants to the Government of Ghana and other third parties, to assert long-standing ownership and control over the disputed land. It further invoked the equitable doctrines of estoppel, laches, and acquiescence, as well as the Limitation Decree, to bar the Plaintiff’s claims.
[6] The Appeal before this Court invites a reconsideration of the Trial Court’s findings on