FUSENI MOHAMMED v. ABDULAI YAYA AND T.T.YAYA

The Plaintiff in a writ issued on 10/11/2021 sought the following reliefs:

a. An amount of GHC 450.00 being the cost of 150 cement blocks Defendants

destroyed on his site.

b. Any order (s) the Court may deem fit.

Plaintiff in the statement of claimed averred that on 9th November, 2021, he

purchased 150 pieces of cement blocks from Mahazu Amidu Enterprise, New Tafo-

Akim for use on his site at Akyem Maase. That as part of the purchasing policy of

the Enterprise, the cement blocks were conveyed to his site; upon arrival when the

cement blocks were being offloaded unto the site from the vehicle, the Defendants

out of nowhere, appeared and begun destroying the blocks. When he inquired from

the Defendants the reason for their act, the Defendants told him that they were

destroying the blocks to prevent him from continuing with the construction of his

building. According to the Plaintiff, all the 150 blocks of cement were destroyed by

the Defendants without any show of remorse on their part.

The Defendants have resisted the claim of the Plaintiff and instead set out a cross

action in the nature of a counterclaim for the following reliefs:

a. Declaration of title and recovery of possession of all that piece or parcel of

land situate, lying and being at Akyem – Maase and bounded as follows: On

one side lies the Akyem Maase and Anyinasin Motor Road, on one side lies

the property of Seibu Ismaila, on one side lies the property of Kwaku Biribi

and on the other side lies the big gutter.

b. Perpetual injunction restraining Plaintiff, his agents, assigns, privies, etc, from

interfering with the land.

c. Punitive cost.

The Defendants in their statement of defence averred that the Plaintiff was

offloading the cement blocks unto their land; beside a store building of their Senior

brother by name Inusah Ismaila. According to them, the land has been their family

land for years now; it belonged to their father by name Yahaya Bassari and thus the

Plaintiff had no right to offload the cement blocks on it. The Defendants averred that

the action of the Plaintiff in offloading the cement blocks on their land was an act

on his part to test the waters as to how they were going to react in the event that he

went on with the development of the land. The Defendants averred that the action of

the Plaintiff amounts to trespass and nuisance thus they asked the driver of the truck

and Plaintiff to desist from offloading the blocks on the land however the Pla