Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
The endorsement on the writ of summons issued at the instance of the plaintiff at this
court claims the reliefs stated below against the defendant.
(1) Recovery of possession of all piece or parcel of land situate and being at
Akwidaa measuring 50ft X 60ft and shared common boundaries with Arko
Borlo, Kakra and a refuse dump on another side.
(2) Special damages for trespass.
(3) Perpetual injunction restraining defendant himself, his worker, his agents,
assigns and privies from having any dealing on the land.
Upon service of the writ of summons and statement of claim, counsel for the plaintiff
raised a preliminary legal issue in respect of the capacity of the plaintiff under Order 1
rule 4(2) of District Court Rule, 2009 [C.I 59]. The court disagreed with the submissions
raised by counsel for the defendant and dismissed the application.
In his written statement and witness statement filed at the court, plaintiff averred that
he is the head of Nana Ewiamanle Asamagama Royal Stool family (hereinafter known
as Ewiamanle family) in Akwidaa. Plaintiff submitted that sometime in 2021 he noticed
that somebody was developing a portion of his family land and that he caused
announcement to be made at the local FM station to instruct the unknown developer to
disclose his or her identity to him. In default of appearance and disclosure of the
identity of the unknown to him as instructed; plaintiff caused a signpost with the words
“Stop Work” to be planted on the land in issue. Thereafter, defendant introduced
herself as the person who was developing the land in issue and that all the invitations
subsequently extended to defendant to engage her in respect of the land in issue came
to naught. Plaintiff contended that the land in issue is his family land and that
defendant is not a member of his family and therefore has no interest or right to
develop it without the consent and concurrence of the family of which he is the head.
According to plaintiff, the intransigence of the defendant to honour the invitation by
plaintiff’s family caused the family to institute the present action against her.
In her defence, defendant submitted that she is a member of Nana Borlo Kofi family of
Akwidaa (hereinafter known as Borlo family) and that the land in issue forms part of a
large tract of land granted to her family over 200 years ago by Nana Akulo Numa Royal
family (hereinafter known as Akulo family) and that her family has been in undisputed
and unf