ANTHONY WIAFE & ORS v. DORA BORKAI BORTEY & VICTORIA AMOO
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- A. A. BENIN
- S. O. A. ADINYIRA (MRS)
- P. BAFFOE- BONNIE
- J. B. AKAMBA
- YAW APPAU
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, ruling in favor of the plaintiff who claimed to have validly acquired and registered the land from the Nungua Stool. The defendants' arguments challenging the validity of the plaintiffs title, based on the non-recognition of Nii Odai Ayiku IV as chief and the lack of registration, were dismissed. The court emphasized the importance of written contracts and the role of statutes such as the Conveyancing Act and the Evidence Act in land transfer procedures.
JUDGMENT
BENIN, JSC:
The plaintiff/respondent/respondent, hereafter called the plaintiff, sued out a writ of summons at the
High Court, Accra against the defendants/appellants/appellants, hereafter called the 1st and 2nd defendants respectively, claiming these reliefs:
(1) Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Baatsonaa, Accra, covering an approximate area of 0.182 acre and bounded on the northeast by a proposed road measuring 122 feet 1 inch more or less, on the south-east by stool land measuring 44 feet 6 inches more or less, on the north west by a proposed road measuring 91 feet 2 inches, and on the south by stool land measuring 117 feet 2 inches-which piece or parcel of land is more particularly delineated on a site plan, as per indenture registered as No. 32000/312C/08 and stamped as AR/1426C/2008.
(2) Recovery of possession of any portion of the land being falsely claimed by defendants.
(3) General damages for trespass.
(4) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants herein, their agents, workers, assigns, servants and any other persons claiming through them from interfering with plaintiff’s title to the ownership, development and occupation of any portion of the parcel of land aforesaid.
The plaintiff’s case as pleaded was that the land in dispute forms part of the larger stool land owned by the Nungua Stool. He obtained a grant from the Nungua Mantse Odaifio Welenchi III and the stool elders. However, as a result of the Nungua Chieftaincy dispute, he was denied registration by the Lands Commission. He was thus compelled to go to Nii Odai Ayiku IV and his stool elders one of the rival claimants to the Nungua Stool for a grant of the same piece of land. He was able to register the title per the indenture he obtained from Nii Odai Ayiku IV. He moved into possession by conveying trips of sand and stones thereon. The defendants challenged his title to the land hence the action.
By an amended statement of defence, the defendants averred that the 1st defendant acquired a large tract of land of which the area in dispute forms a part as a native of Nungua, sometime in 1998 and has been in occupation since then. The 1st defendant contended that she fenced the land leaving a small portion in front of the land. According to her one Nii Bortei Sango allowed squatters to place kiosks and other temporary structures on the unfenced portion of the land. These squatters caused a lot of nuisance