HAMZA WAZIRI vs MR. GODWIN SEKYERE & ANOTHER

By an amended writ of summons and statement of claim dated 17th May 2018, the Plaintiff Hamza Waziri, sued the Defendants for a declaration of title to a piece of land located at Bortianor, Accra, recovery of possession of the said land, perpetual injunction and damages for trespass.

In the accompanying statement of claim, the Plaintiff asserted that he acquired the land in dispute from the Bortianor Stool in the year 2005 and immediately went into possession of same by clearing it and commencing the construction of a four bedroom house.

Along the line, he travelled outside the jurisdiction; but on his return, found to his chagrin, that the 1st Defendant was building upon the structure he had left behind.

His warnings to the 1st Defendant to stay away from his property fell on deaf ears and despite several reports to the police, the 1st Defendant was, with the assistance of land guards, developing his property steadily.

He therefore brought the instant action for the reliefs stated above.

In their amended statement of defence and counterclaim filed on 31st May 2018, the Defendants contended that they acquired the land in dispute in 1997 from one Hajia Aisha, who was the original owner of the said land.

They claimed that the said Hajia Aisha caused the Bortianor Stool to make a direct grant in their favour because she had not registered her interest in the land at the material time.

Subsequently, the Bortianor Stool in 2015, executed another indenture in their favour when upon attempts to register their interest in the land in dispute, they were required by the Lands Commission to procure a digital site plan.

The Defendants claim that upon acquiring the land in dispute, they filled it with sand, levelled it and began the construction of a foundation footing.

They further claim that the Plaintiff rather entered the land unlawfully and attempted to build on the footings they had erected.

The Defendants therefore counterclaimed for declaration of title to the land in dispute, recovery of possession and damages for trespass.

In the Reply filed by Plaintiff to Defendants’ counterclaim, he denied their claim of ownership to the land in dispute.

He maintained that he was put in vacant possession of the said land and enjoyed peaceful occupation of same without any interference from the Defendants’ vendor.

He further claimed that he had completed a four bedroom house on the land in dispute in which he had put his family.

Again, he asserted that his att