ANYIRA II v. CONSTRUCTION COIGNENT TOGO AND OTHERS
1960
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- OLLENNU J
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
1960
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court determined that the plaintiff was in lawful possession of the land at the time of the trespass by defendants, who destroyed property. The co-defendant's attempts to assert title were disregarded due to their failure to lead evidence. The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to damages for trespass and dismissed the argument to refer the case to a local court due to complexity and the nature of the admissions. There was no legal or factual basis to refer the case solely based on the Local Courts Act. Ultimately, the court awarded the plaintiff G200 in damages.
JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.
(His lordship referred to the pleadings and continued):
The action before the court is one for trespass, a wrong to possession of land. The only person entitled in law to a relief for trespass is the person in possession of the land at the date of the trespass or the person in whom is vested the right to immediate possession of the land. Now it is admitted by the defendants in their statement of defence and the letter exhibit "I", that the plaintiff and his family were in possession and occupation of the land. It is also admitted by the co-defendant, as shown in his statement of defence, that the plaintiff and members of this family are the persons in possession and occupation of the land. Again it is admitted by the defendants as well as by the co-defendants that the defendants entered upon the land without the permission of the plaintiff who is in possession of the land. Therefore even upon the pleadings the plaintiff is entitled to the relief he seeks and the only matter which becomes outstanding is, the quantum of damages.
Now as between the plaintiff and the co-defendant, the co-defendant raised the issue of his title as allodial owner of the land alleging that the plaintiff and members of his family are his licensees vested with determinable interests only in the land. The onus of establishing as between him who is not in possession of the land, and the plaintiff and members of the family who are in possession of the land, that he, the co-defendant, is the person in possession whom title to or freehold interest in the land is vested, is upon the co-defendant. But even if the co-defendant were to succeed in establishing that the freehold of the land is vested in him, and that the plaintiff and members of his family are his licensees having only a determinable interest, he still cannot prevent the plaintiff from pursuing his relief against an invader of his possession and occupation, and the plaintiff would be entitled all the same to damages for trespass against any person who disturbs his said possession and occupation without authority.
[p.123]
The case came before the court on the 6th of May, 1960, when all the parties were either present or represented and it was adjourned by consent to yesterday, 11th May, 1960, for trial. The co-defendant did not appear and was not represented at the trial. The plaintiff and a witness called by him gave evidence which established that the plaintiff is the head of his family and that