GILBERT MARSHALL OFOSU AGYARE v. JULIANA SANDERS
2024
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
- PWAMANG J.S.C, (PRESIDING) AMADU J.S.C., KULENDI J.S.C., GAEWU J.S.C., ADJEI-FRIMPONG J.S.C
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Tort Law
2024
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an appeal against decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal regarding a land dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant. The Plaintiff claimed title and damages against the Defendant, who had allegedly trespassed and destroyed boundary markers. The High Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the Defendant's appeal, affirming the lower courts' rulings that the Plaintiff's and Defendant's lands were distinct and based on proper application of legal principles concerning proof of land title and concurrent findings.
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 4th November, 2021, which affirmed a judgment of the High Court granting the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent’s (hereinafter called “the Plaintiff”) claim of title to land, recovery of possession, perpetual injunction and damages against the Defendant/Appellant/Appellant (hereinafter called “the Defendant”).
BACKGROUND
2. The Plaintiff caused a Writ of Summons to be issued from the registry of the High Court, Koforidua on the 16th of April, 2012 against the Defendant seeking the following reliefs:
a. A declaration that all that piece or parcel of land situate and being at Asukesease-Obosomase-Akuapem and bounded as NE by Professor Eugene Asamoah Amoah measuring 200ft, SE by proposed road measuring 213ft, SW by proposed road measuring 197.8ft and NE by proposed road measuring 207.4ft, is the property of the Plaintiff.
b. declaration that all that piece or parcel of land situate and being at Asukesease-Obosomase-Akuapem and bounded as NE by Dean Leighten Armah measuring 99.3ft, SE by Madam Asiado Yobo, measuring 203.9ft, SE by proposed road measuring 99.3ft, NE by proposed road measuring 203.1ft is the property of the Plaintiff. c.Recovery of possession
d. Damages for trespass
e. Damages for fraud
f.GHC 140.00, being cost of the 14 boundary pillars the Defendant destroyed on Plaintiff's land
g. Perpetual injunction, restraining the Defendant, assigns, successors, agents and workmen from dealing with Plaintiff's land.
3. The antecedent contentions upon which the Plaintiff grounded the above reliefs were that Plaintiff acquired two parcels of land from the Akua Donkor family of Obosomase – Akuapim. Though the two parcels of land abut each other, they have different documentation as originally, Plaintiff’s brother was to acquire one of the parcels of land for himself which he declined. Upon acquisition, Plaintiff registered the two parcels of land. The first parcel of land was stamped as LVB/ER/587/2005 with registration number RA 195/05 whereas the second parcel of land was stamped as LVB/588/2005 and bears registration number RA 194/05. Plaintiff contended that in August 2011,
Defendant entered unto the land, removed and destroyed 14 of the Plaintiff’s boundary pillars which were used to secure the land.
4. Attempts to meet the Defendant to resolve the impasse was unsuccessful but the Defendant subsequently started the felling of trees on the land in dispute. It