COMFORT AMOA BOADU vs LA-NKWANTANANG & ANOTHER
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP WILLIAM APPIAH TWUMASI (J)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit to gain access to her property in Oyarifa, blocked by the 2nd Defendant's development. The local government (1st Defendant) had created an access road that the 2nd Defendant blocked. The court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to access and that the 1st Defendant acted within its statutory powers to ensure lawful property development. The 2nd Defendant's counterclaim for damages was dismissed as self-inflicted and not the fault of the 1st Defendant.
The Plaintiff caused to be issued from the registry of this court a writ of summons and statement of claim on the 29 July, 2021 against the Defendants claiming the following reliefs: i) Declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to access to her house in conformity with the North Oyarifa Residential Planning Scheme of the 1st Defendant.
ii) Declaration that the 2nd Defendant’s property situate at Oyarifa (Ghana Flag)is being developed without the requisite building permit from the 1st Defendant and in breach of its North Oyarifa Residential Planning Scheme.
iii) An order for the 1st Defendant to create an access to the Plaintiff’s property in conformity with the 1st Defendant’s North Oyarifa Residential Planning Scheme.
iv) An order of perpetual injunction against the 2nd Defendant restraining her, either by herself, her agents, privies, assigns, workmen, from obstructing the 1st Defendant in its legal duty to create an access road to the Plaintiff’s property.
v) General damages.
vi) Payment of Plaintiff’s legal fees.
THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF It is the case of the Plaintiff that she is the owner of uncompleted property (at roofing stage) situate at Oyarifa (Ghana Flag), Accra and the 2nd Defendant is her neighbor who is developing her property, whilst the 1st Defendant is the local government structure for the area with the mandate to draw up and enforce planning schemes and layout within its jurisdiction.
It is the case of the Plaintiff that all the developers around her property had built around it completely blocking access to her property.
Plaintiff says she reported the matter to the Physical Planning Department of the 1st Defendant, and upon inspection by an officer of the 1st Defendant, the 1st Defendant decided to create an access road to the Plaintiff’s property in conformity with the 1st Defendant’s layout for the area.
It is the case of the Plaintiff that when the 1st Defendant created the access road, the 2nd Defendant blocked it claiming the access road went through her land.
Plaintiff says she subsequently asked her lawyers to write formally to the 1st Defendant in a letter dated 25 November, 2020 requesting for clarification as to whether the 2nd Defendant had obtained a building permit from the 1st Defendant, and also whether 2nd Defendant’s development conformed with the 1st Defendant’s layout plan for the area.
The Plaintiff says in a reply dated 21 May, 2021, the 1st Defendant attached the planning scheme or layout plan for t