HAJIA AKWELEY AMUDALATU v. BABA BIDARI

JUDGMENT

DZAMEFE, JA

This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court Accra dated 15th June 2012. The plaintiff hereinafter referred to as the respondent issued this writ of summons against the appellant for the following reliefs:

a. A declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land situate at a Lane off Derby Avenue in Accra Central in the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana and measuring 19.0 in the North, 50.1 in the West, 19.0 in the South and 43.0 in the East;

b. Recovery of possession of all that piece or parcel of land described in paragraph 1 (a) above;

c. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and all other members of the Bidari family and all persons claiming title through them whether as successor, assigns or agents from interfering with the plaintiff’s use/enjoyment of the land in dispute;

d. Mense profit

e. Cost

The respondent in his statement of claim avers she is the owner of a piece of land situate and lying at Lane off Derby Avenue in Accra Central. She acquired the property by a deed of conveyance dated 5th July 2007 made by Ken Brookman Amissah, the lawful attorney of the Administrator of the Estate of Stephen Coleman as Vendor and she the respondent as the purchaser. On 6th May 2008 she was issued with Land Title Certificate No.GA 26540.

The appellant is the Head of the Bidari family who owns the adjoining land with a storey building thereon.

The respondent avers that she realized the appellant had encroached onto her land and constructed shops thereon and rented out. The refusal of the appellant to settle this issue amicably gave birth to this suit.

The appellant in his defence said the respondent if she has obtained a Land Title Certificate then it is fraudulent. He averred that he has been the neighbour of the respondent’s predecessors in title for over 70 years and should inform him of measuring her land for purposes of registration as required by PNDCL 152. It is his case that since 1957 he and the respondent’s predecessors in title had their various portions of land and each of them having their respective shops and boundaries. He averred further that both parties built their various shops since 1958. That the buildings were joined together so that the shops showed the boundaries of each other. It is his case that by this the respondent is estopped by NRCD 54 from changing the boundaries which have never being in dispute since 1958. He said the respondents allegations in her statement of