HARRY ANKU AKPAO v. INNOCENT KOMLA GAVUA AND LANDS COMMISSION SECRETARIAT, REGIONAL LANDS COMMISSION, HO
December 7, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- CHARITY A. ASEM (MRS) J
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Tort Law
December 7, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Charity A. Asem (Mrs.) of the High Court resolved a land dispute over Loboli land in Ho-Dome brought by the head and lawful representative of the Akpao Wusu family against a Ho resident (1st defendant) and the Lands Commission (2nd defendant). After 1st defendant’s counsel withdrew and the 2nd defendant filed only a notice of appearance, the court served hearing notice and proceeded when defendants failed to participate. The plaintiff proved title through an approved site plan and a recent High Court Ho judgment affirming the family’s ownership, and corroborated possession through Rev. Father Jesse Amedzi’s testimony that the Roman Catholic Diocese, led by Bishop Kofi Anani Lodonu, acquired 59.88 acres and has peacefully occupied since 2007. The court declared ownership and ordered recovery, directed the Lands Commission to expunge any entry for the 1st defendant, and granted injunctive relief. It denied damages for trespass for lack of proof of specific acts and awarded GH₵10,000 costs.
JUDGMENT
The defendants’ failure to participate in the instant trial was by choice. But it is
appropriate that before the court grants any reliefs in favour of the plaintiff on his claims
before the court the facts leading to the instant dispute should be re-counted.
The claims of the plaintiff as endorsed on his writ of summons against the defendants are
as follows;
a) An order affirming plaintiff’s family ownership of the land the subject of the instant
action.
b) An order declaring the defendants’ act on the land the subject of the instant action
constitute trespass.
c) An order of recovery of possession of the land the subject of the instant action.
d) An order directed at the 2nd defendant to expunge from their Register any entry of
title they might have entered for the 1st defendant.
e) Damages for trespass.
f) An order of perpetual injunction against the defendants herein, their agents,
assigns, servants, workmen, successors, or privies from doing anything whatsoever
with the possession, occupation, enjoyment, alienation or development of the
instant land or any portion thereof by the plaintiff, its agents, servants, workmen,
successors, assigns or privies.
According to the plaintiff, he is the head and lawful representative of the Akpao Wusu
Clan of Ho-Dome and as such institute the instant action for and on behalf of the said
family. According to him their family land is commonly called Loboli land.
He described the 1st defendant as a resident of Ho and a trespasser unto the disputed land.
No doubt the 2nd defendant is the custodian of and manager of all government lands.
According to plaintiff his family discovered sometime in 2017 that the 1st defendant has
trespassed unto a portion of their land. When confronted he traced his root of title through
the 2nd defendant, which demised unto him land measuring 0.17 acres. Plaintiff avers
further that the defendant would not heed to their warnings to restrain from the trespass
through several protests from his family.
He said the land in dispute is bounded on the North by Ashong Ametorgbe’s property,
the East by Wukake’s land and Kunyoadunu’s property, the South side by Kwasi
Gbagida’s property and on the 4th side, North West by James Asase’s property.
It is noted that 1st defendant struggled to put in a defence. When he finally did, he traced
his root of title from 2nd defendant Lands Commission per the Chairman one Francis Doe,
who signed defendants’ documents as Cha