ASI TWUMWAA v. REV. DORIS OFOSU AND ABU KWADWO

The plaintiff filed this suit against Rev. Doris Ofosu seeking the following reliefs;

a. A declaration of title to a parcel of land at Nyankumasi Ahenkro measuring 0.95 acres

which shares boundaries with Cape Coast Assin Fosu Road, Domestic Science, Kobby and

Auntie Kakra.

b. An Order directed at the defendant to remove any shelter or structure defendant has put

on the land.

The defendant pleaded not liable to the claims and added that she acquired the land from

Abu Kwadwo Dwamena the head of family of the landowners at Katakyiase. The Court

presided over by the previous magistrate Ordered for joinder of the 2nd defendant, Abu

Kwadwo Dwamena. The second defendant appeared in Court pleaded liable and denied

selling the land to the first defendant.

Consequently, the Court called on the plaintiff to prove her case.

The plaintiff’s case is that she lives at Assin Bossomadwe. And that her father acquired the

disputed land, located at Katakyiase. The father then built on the said land. But the father did

not complete the building and died. The plaintiff said as children of their deceased father they

entered the land only to notice that the first defendant entered the land and erected a

temporal structure on the land.

The first defendant did not contest the facts enumerated above. Interestingly, the second

defendant who pleaded liable still participated in the proceedings. The first defendant in her

cross-examination insisted the 2nd defendant sold the land to her. The 2nd defendant prayed

the Court to be given the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff.

The 2nd defendant stated: what the plaintiff said in Court was the truth.

The case of the 1st defendant is that she bought the land from the 2nd defendant. It must

however be noted that the 2nd defendant said he did not sell the land to the 1st Defendant.

In Ago Sai & others Vrs. Kpobi Tetteh Tsuru III [2010]SCLR762 ACT 779 ANSAH JSC stated

that in an action for declaration of title to land, the burden of proof remained on the plaintiff

to prove conclusively, that on the balance of probabilities, the plaintiff was entitled to the

claim of title. And that this could be done by proving the essentials of the root of title. This is

exactly what the plaintiff established. The plaintiff was able to prove the root of her title. That

is, she traces her title to their deceased father. And the fact is that the deceased father acquired

the land built on same but died hence the children in