CELESTINA AGYEKUM VS JANET BLANKSON
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE BERNARD BENTIL
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The facts of the case involve a dispute over a parcel of land purchased by the Plaintiff, which was originally contested in a prior action by the Defendant's husband. The Plaintiff received a favorable judgment in the previous case and an injunction against interference. The Plaintiff now accuses the Defendant of trespass and seeks various legal remedies. The Defendant denies trespassing, claims her actions are within the land boundaries determined by a previous court judgment, and asserts the defense of res judicata. The court found the current suit barred by res judicata, determined no trespass occurred based on a composite plan, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims, awarding costs to the Defendant.
The facts of this case are devoid of complexity.
The Plaintiff’s case is simply that she purchased a parcel of land from the State Housing Company Limited following which a Lease was executed in her favour.
From the Statement of Claim, the land in dispute was the subject maꢀer of an action commenced by the husband of the Defendant in July 2018. In the said action, the Plaintiff herein counterclaimed and sought a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant’s husband and all claiming through him.
Fortunately for the Plaintiff herein, judgment was entered in her favour as the Court found that she had legitimately acquired the land in dispute.
Consequently, the Defendant’s husband and his privies were perpetually restrained from interfering with the land in dispute.
The Plaintiff states that she did not counterclaim for recovery of possession and same was not granted by the Court.
It is the case of the Plaintiff that, the Defendant who was privy to the said judgment has continued to trespass unto the land in dispute and has constructed a wall on same despite the express terms of the judgment and protests from the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff avers that the Defendant’s action is radically changing the nature and purpose of the land and she will not stop her trespassory acts unless compelled by this Court.
The actions of the Defendant thus necessitated the institution of this action for the following reliefs: 1. Declaration of title to the land particularly described in the Writ of Summons; 2. Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, her successors, agents, servants, workmen, privies and all claiming through or under the Defendant from interfering with the Plaintiff’s enjoyment of her land; 3. Recovery of possession 4. An order to Defendant to demolish all unauthorised structures put up unlawfully on the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s expense; 5. Damages for trespass and; 6. Costs including Solicitor’s fees.
The Plaintiff’s claims are vehemently traversed by the Defendant.
According to the Defendant, she and her husband never trespassed on the Plaintiff’s land.
The Defendant admits the suit against the Plaintiff and her grantor (Mr. Emmanuel Blankson v The State Housing Company Limited & Anor. (Suit No. E1/101/2018)) and states that the Court in this suit clearly delineated the extent of the Defendant’s land which she jointly owns with her husband (the Plaintiff therein) based on the composite plan and expert evidence before the Court.
The Defendant f