BENJAMIN JOHNSON v. FATI WILLIAMS

OFOE, J.A:

The claim of the plaintiff before the trial court was for:

“(a) a declaration of title to all that land lying and being at Korle-Dudor, Accra bounded on the north by a road measuring 9,585 feet more or less, on the east by a road measuring 6,262 feet more or less, on the south by a road measuring 4,395 feet more or less and to the south-east by a road measuring 8,213 feet more or less and covering an approximate area of about 10.8 acres.

(b) an order for recovery of possession.

(c) damages for trespass.

(d) perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant either by herself, assigns, agents, servants or privies from entering unto the land, the subject matter of dispute or in any other way interfering with the Plaintiff’s family user or quiet enjoyment of it.

(e) costs.

What do we have in the pleadings of the parties? The gist of the case of the plaintiff on the pleadings is that his family acquired the land in dispute by a conveyance from the then government of the Gold Coast on the 20th day of December 1928. Their head of family was by then Mr. Gilbert Johnson. Their ownership of the land was confirmed by a High Court judgment delivered on the 31st day of July 1973. This judgment, it is the pleadings of the plaintiff, is a declaration to the whole world of their title to the land. Neither the defendant’s predecessors nor her family had ever had title to this land and had never exercised any acts of ownership or possession over this land. To the plaintiff therefore, Madam Commeykai or James Afutu Korley on whom plaintiff based his title, had never ever owned this land in dispute

Defendant’s pleadings on the other hand were to this effect: that the land in dispute was granted her predecessor Madam Commmeykai by James Afutu Korley in September 1917, registered with number 366/1917. His predecessor developed this land 87years ago. Some of these developments were pulled down to make way for erection of shops. For the whole period of 87years when the predecessor was on this land neither the plaintiff’s predecessors in title nor any other person from plaintiff’s family raised any objection to the occupation by her predecessors in title. It was only recently when she pulled down the old structures to put up shops that the plaintiff sought to challenge her ownership of this land. In respect to the 1973 judgment relied on by the plaintiff, it was the case of the defendant that they were never parties to that suit and therefore

not bound by it. Defe