EDWIN AYINE ADUKO V. ANAGBIRE AZIBIRE

BACKGROUND

Respondent’s reliefs

[1] On the fateful day of 2 April 2020, the Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) approached the Circuit Court, Bolgatanga, by the issuance of a writ of summons, seeking the following reliefs against the Defendant/Appellant (hereafter referred to as Appellant):

(a) A declaration of title to all that parcel of land situate and known as plot 339, Soe Residential Area in Bolgatanga, is the property of the Plaintiff's deceased father.

(b) An order that interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants, licensees, lessees, assigns, etc, from having any dealings with or on the said property.

(c) General damages for unlawful trespass on the disputed land.

(d) Recovery of possession

(e) Cost

Appellant’s counterclaim

[2] Not to be outdone, the Appellant on 4/5/2020, filed his statement of defence and counterclaimed as follows:

(a) A Declaration of title to all that piece of land situate at Soe Residential Area known as plot No. 339 and bounded to the North by Tap Hotel-Soe Primary Road, bounded to the South by Azaare's house, bounded to the West by Agobra's house and bounded to the East by a Road.

(b) A Declaration that both the Lease and the Assignment dated 28th March,1977, and 23rd December 1977, respectively, are invalid.

(c) A Perpetual injunction restraining the Plaintiff, his workmen or agents, assigns and customary successors from interfering with the quiet enjoyment and use of the said land by the defendant's family.

(d) An order cancelling both the Lease and Assignment dated 28th March,1977, and 23rd December 1977, respectively.

(e) Costs

Issues for trial

[3] After the close of pleadings, the following issues were set down for trial:

(a) Whether or not the Plaintiff has title to the land in dispute

(b) Whether or not the Plaintiff is estopped from claiming ownership of the land.

(c) Whether or not Plaintiff's title is invalid.

(d) Whether or not the land in dispute is a public land which ought to have been used for a public purpose.

(e) Whether or not the Defendant is the pre-acquisition owner and the rightful person to re-enter the land in dispute.

f) Whether or not the Defendant's family has been in possession of the land in dispute since 1977 by farming on it.

g) Whether the Plaintiff has breached a material covenant in the Lease.

*i)W