GODWIN DAH PER HIS LAWFUL ATTORNEY BEATRICE DAH v. ELO KUDZO AND HOHOE MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY

By his writ of summons dated 18 July 2019 the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants the

following reliefs :

a. Declaration that the structure complained of is a nuisance, a trespass to Plaintiff’s

lands and an infringement onto Plaintiff’s easement of road and light.

b. An order directed at the 2nd defendant to remove the said structure.

c. Costs including Solicitor’s fee.

Upon service of the Plaintiff’s writ of summons and statement of claim on the defendants,

both entered appearance separately through their respective lawyers. The 1st defendant

subsequently filed a defence, but the 2nd defendant did not. The 1st defendant denied the

claim of the Plaintiff and counter claimed as follows:

A declaration that the 1st Defendant and his lawful wife Doris Dah are the owners

of the disputed land situate, lying and being at Gbi-Bla which land is bounded as

follows:

1. On one side by an access road

2. On another side by the vendor’s land

3. On yet another side by the property of Dah Kudjo

4. On the last side by the property of Seth”

PLAINTIFF’S CASE

The case of the Plaintiff as can be gleaned from his pleadings is that he purchased a piece

of land situate at Gbi-Bla within the Hohoe Municipality in 1996 from one Sosthenes

Jenkins Adade. According to the Plaintiff, the boundaries of the land he purchased are,

on the North by the Vendor’s property measuring a distance of 100 feet more or less, on

the East by the Vendor’s property measuring a distance of 94 feet more or less, on the

West by a proposed road measuring a distance of 115 feet more or less and on the South

by the property of Volta School for the death measuring a distance of 100 feet more or

less. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he constructed a four-bedroom building on the land.

That no sooner had the roofing been completed had the 1st Defendant moved into the

uncompleted building with his family under the pretext of taking care of the place

notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff did not approve 1st Defendant’s occupation.

According to Plaintiff when pressure mounted on the 1st defendant to quit the house with

his family, the 1st Defendant proceeded to build an illegal structure on the western margin

of Plaintiff’s land which is the main access to the Plaintiff’s compound and an easement

for that matter. According to the Plaintiff he made a report of 1st Defendant’s illegal

structure to the 2nd Defendant, thereupon the 2nd defendant came and prohibited the 1st