ANTHONY DZIGBOR v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, HO, THE SOCIAL WELFARE DEPT., HO AND E.P. CHURCH OF GHANA, FIAVE, HO
October 28, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- CHARITY A. ASEM (MRS), J
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Tort Law
October 28, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This High Court of Ghana judgment, authored by Justice Charity A. Asem, concerns a land dispute over approximately 6.3 acres behind the Rural Training Centre yard at Ho Bankoe, claimed as part of the Kpleve Lands by the Dzigbor family. The 2nd defendant, a governmental agency under the Social Welfare Directorate, occupied the site without evidence of lawful acquisition; the 3rd defendant, identified as a church, was accused of trespass. The 1st and 2nd defendants initially asserted lawful state acquisition and payment, but during proceedings their counsel acknowledged the absence of any Executive Instrument and proof of compensation after unsuccessful searches with the Lands Commission and Bank of Ghana. Relying on Order 23 rule 6, the court entered judgment on admission, varying compensation to the current market value and awarding GH₵ 1,209,000 plus 20% costs, with payment directed forthwith and the decree encompassing all reliefs.
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiff in the instant case claim that he is the Head of the Dzigbor family of Ho
Volta Region. According to him this family are the owners of a large parcel of land known
as the Kpleve Lands which includes the land in dispute. He said the land covers an area
of approximants 6.3 acres in measurement.
Plaintiff stated that his family become aware for several years the unlawful occupation of
the disputed site by the 2nd defendant and will aver that even though the 2nd defendant is
a governmental agency, it cannot unlawfully occupy someone’s land and commence
construction of permanent structures without evidence of acquisition.
Plaintiff equally accused the 3rd defendant herein of trespass; and therefore claimed per
the endorsement on the writ of summons as follows;
a. An order for declaration of title to all that parcel of land covering an area of 6.3
acres occupied by the Defendants and situate directly behind the Rural Training
Centre (Yard) at Ho Bankoe.
b. An order directing the 2nd Defendant to pay adequate compensation to be assessed
by the court appointed valuer for the period the 2nd Defendant had occupied the
land unlawfully.
c. An order that the 2nd Defendant gives up vacant possession of the parcel of land
they occupied to the Plaintiffs forthwith.
d. An order directing the 3rd Defendant to pay adequate compensation for
trespassing on to the Plaintiffs land without authority.
e. An order for recovery of possession of all the parcel of land being developed by
the 3rd Defendant.
f. Cost including solicitor’s fees against all the Defendants jointly and severally.
st and 2nd Defendants per their initial defence filed on the 9/12/2019 at paragraph 3 and
thereof stated that the disputed site occupied by the 2nd defendant was legally acquired
by the state and paid for. That the 2nd defendant has a site plan covering the land. They
thus put the plaintiffs to strict proof. In robing 3rd defendant into the dispute, at paragraph
10 of the statement of defence counsel alleged that, the portion granted to the 3rd
defendant was by the Ho Municipal Assembly against all resistance from the 2nd
defendant. And finally that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the land and could not
have leased same to the 3rd defendant. So they are not entitled to their claims.
Even though 3rd defendant cause an appearance to be filed on its behalf, the court received
no defence from the church.
Determined to proof its ownership to