2023
CIRCUIT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiffs' family claimed ownership of a piece of land and sought to prevent the defendant from constructing on it. The plaintiffs presented evidence of long-term occupation and resisted past attempts by the defendant's family to exercise ownership. Despite both parties submitting documentary evidence, the court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently established their family's title to the land. The court also determined that the plaintiffs' witness had the legal capacity to testify as attorney. The defendant's recent acts of possession were deemed trespass, and the court awarded damages to the plaintiffs.
The first witness, came to plaintiff’s family to
seek permission to build on the land. The then Ebusuapanyin, Kojo Bentum, refused to
grant her the permission. Sometime later, the family realized someone was constructing
a building on the land. When the building had reached window level, they destroyed
the structure leading to their arrest by police. The case against them was subsequently
dismissed by the Cape Coast circuit court. The 1st defendant also entered the land and
began construction hence this action to stop him.The second defendant’s father was Kobina Ebow who occupied the land with his wife
Aba Amokua. This Aba came and testified for the defendants. She claims that Kobina
Ebow occupied the land with the permission of the defendant’s family and that she
never sought permission from plaintiff’s family after his death to build on it. The fact
that Aba Amokua was prevented from building on the land and her evidence that her
husband was not on talking terms with the plaintiff’s family explains her evidence in
favour of the defendant. It stands to reason why she would support the defendant in
his claim for the land and not the plaintiffs who were relatives of her husband. She was
also the complainant in the case against the plaintiff’s in the circuit court. In my
opinion, the plaintiffs were able to establish that several members of their family had
occupied the land for decades. Furthermore, the recent attempts made by the
defendant’s family to exercise any rights of ownership, was opposed by the plaintiff’s
family which led to the criminal case.
The defendant for his part relied on his own testimony and that of his two witnesses.
The defendant filed two witness statements, one on the 20th of April 2020 and the other
on the 25th of February 2022. He testified that, his family owned the land in dispute and
that their land was granted to them by Nana Brebo, the founder of Kuntu. According to
them, while the plaintiffs were also granted land, the location of their land is at a
different place and the land in dispute does not belong to plaintiffs.
The defendants’ narration of his family’s possession of the land is actually through
members of the plaintiff’s family but claims it was with the permission of his family.
In the case of Kwaku Arhin, whom plaintiff’s claim was the first to occupy the land, the
defendant stated in his paragraph 13 of the initial statement of defence and in
paragraph 12 of the amended statement of de