GHANA BROADCASTING CORP. VS NII SAKA
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP NOVISI AFUA ARYENE (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Tort Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff, the owner of 'Office Block One', claimed that the defendant unlawfully occupied the property and operated a school without authorization. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the defendant's occupation illegal and awarding general damages for trespass. The court ordered the defendant to vacate the property within 28 days and imposed a perpetual injunction against further interference. The court emphasized the need for specific proof of special damages and considered wrongful occupation in the assessment of damages.
Plaintiff is the owner of a property referred to as “Office Block One” located at its Weija Monitoring Station.
The property fell into disuse when plaintiff moved from analogue transmission to FM transmission.
Taking advantage of the unoccupied property, defendant operated a school known as “Way of Hope School” on the property without any authorization byplaintiff.
The thrust of plaintiff’s plaint is that she has urgent need of the property to fulfill herstatutory mandate as a public service broadcaster.
Consequently, by notice of eviction dated 4thof March 2014, defendant was served with notice to give up vacant possession of plaintiff’s property by the 30th of August 2014. Plaintiff averred that defendant failed to vacate the property and she took steps to re-occupy herproperty by barricading the windows and doors at cost of GHc990. But defendant broke the barricades down and has continued to unlawfully occupy the property thereby depriving her ofsame.
Plaintiff’s prayer is for the following reliefs: 1. A declaration that defendant’s occupation of plaintiff’s property known as “Office Block One” is illegal; 2. An order for defendant to quit the property known as “Office Block One” and yield up vacant possession to plaintiff; 3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, whether by himself, his agents, servants, licencees, assigns, workmen, representatives or anybody claiming title through him whatsoever, from going onto the property, or generally having dealings with or on the property or do anything which is inconsistent with the plaintiff’s title to the property; 4. Perpetual injunction restraining defendant, his agents, servants, licencees , assigns, workmen, representatives from interfering with plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment of its property; 5. Special damages of Ghc990. 00; 6. General damages for unlawful entry, destruction of property and trespass; 7. Costs Defendant entered appearance on 24th of February 2015 but failed to file defence and onapplication by plaintiff, this court differently constituted, granted interlocutory judgment infavour of plaintiff and the suit was adjourned for assessment of damages.
After severaladjournments with notice to defendant failing to come to court, the suit was firmly fixed forassessment of damages on the 27th of October 2015 and counsel for defendant duly served as peraffidavit of service on the docket.
At the hearing, plaintiff was represented by Prince Osei Antwi, an Estate Officer with t