ANTHONY ATTA POKU VS KOJO DORBOR & ORS

Plaintiffs’ Case By an amended writ of summons issued on 18th July 2016, the plaintiff claimed the following reliefs against the defendants: i. Declaration of title to plot No. 626, East Legon Residential Area, Accra in favour of the plaintiff herein.

Damages for trespass against each of the defendants.

Recovery of possession of plot No. 626 aforesaid from the defendants to the plaintiff.

Demolition of all structures on the land by the defendants at the cost of the defendants.

v. Perpetual injunction against the defendants, their agents and servants as well as their assigns and successors.

Any other relief deemed fit by this honourable court.

It is the plaintiff’s case that in the year 1988, after an application he had made to the Lands Commission for a parcel of land was approved, the Government of Ghana through the Lands Commission granted a lease covering an approximate area of 0. 47 of an acre over the land in dispute in his favour.

He took possession of the land and placed corner pillars on all the four corners of the land.

He immediately got a plan and drawings for the construction of a single storey building on the land which plan was approved, culminating in the issuance of a building permit by the Accra City Council on 11th November 1988. The plaintiff further asserts that he put sand, stones and blocks on the land to commence his construction but he was met with some agitation from some people from the nearby village who occupied the plot thereby preventing him from commencing his construction activities.

He brought this to the attention of the Lands Commission who took quite some time before bringing the situation under control.

It is the plaintiff’s case that when he later visited the land after calm had returned, he found that the defendants had entered the land and without authority, erected two separate structures on the land which they were occupying.

He accosted them and tried to get them out of his land but he was not successful.

He caused his solicitors to write to the defendants but they defied the said letter.

The plaintiff therefore asserts that the defendants have no interest in the land in dispute; neither have they any right to be on the land but they are bent on occupying the land to the detriment of the plaintiff and it is only the court’s intervention that can halt the defendants’ trespass activities.

The plaintiff therefore claimed the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons as captured above.

3rd defendant’s def