DR. HAYFORD ASIEDU-BAAH & ORS vs ANANE KOBBY & ANOR

RULING ON MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SURVEYOR TO DRAW UP COMPOSITE PLANS

Introduction

By a Motion on Notice dated 1st June 2026, the Plaintiffs/Applicants seek an order appointing an independent licensed surveyor to prepare a composite plan showing whether, and to what extent, the land in dispute in the present action falls within or overlaps the land adjudged in Suit No. C13/01/2013, Godwin Teye Osei v. Nene Narh Matti III & Others, in the High Court, Koforidua.

The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by a law clerk in the chambers of counsel for the Applicants. It is opposed by the 2nd Defendant/Respondent, Nene Narh Matti III, who deposed to the Affidavit in Opposition with the consent and authority of the 1st Defendant/Respondent.

The Case of the Applicants

The Applicants depose that on 31st July 2025 the High Court, Koforidua entered judgment in favour of their grantor in Suit No. C13/01/2013, which judgment, they contend, affirmed their grantor’s ownership of land earlier confirmed by the Supreme Court, and settled the identity and extent of that land by reference to a composite plan drawn in those proceedings.

On that footing, the Applicants contend that the land in dispute in the present action falls within the land adjudged in the Koforidua suit and that the action is therefore res judicata. They accordingly seek the appointment of an independent licensed surveyor to prepare a fresh composite plan depicting the land in dispute herein, the land adjudged in the Koforidua proceedings, and the extent to which the respective parcels coincide, overlap or otherwise relate to one another. They maintain that such an exercise is necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely determine the issues before it, and propose that the surveyor’s fees be borne by all the parties in the interests of justice and the expeditious determination of the action.

The Case of the Respondents

The Respondents oppose the application as unmeritorious, frivolous and a waste of the Court’s time. They depose that the 2nd Defendant/Respondent is the head of the Manya Aklomuase family, whose title to the very land in dispute — forming part of a tract of some 25.51 square miles — was conclusively determined in the family’s favour in the Consolidated Suit Nos. E1/16/2007 and E1/6/2008 *(Nene Matti III v. Peteye Osei, substituted by Godwin Osei, and Samuel Lamm Oyortey & Ors. v. Peteye Osei, substituted by Godw