HENRY NIMAKO-BREMPONG v. JOYCE B. AKADZA _ ANOR

JUDGMENT

ANSAH, J.A.:

The plaintiff endorsed his writ with claims for:

1. "An order that the part of the perimeter wall around 1st Defendant's house at Nungua-Buade in Accra straddles or is built on the space demarcated as part (western) part of the access road lying and being between the first defendant's said house and that move freely to and from his (plaintiff's) said house.

2. General damages".

The parties are adjoining landowners and the case for the plaintiff was that the space between their houses was demarcated for an access road by the authorities. The first defendant built and extended her fence wall onto the access road so much that it was only about a meter away from the house of the plaintiff. As a result vehicular movement to and from the plaintiffs' house through the access road became impossible. The plaintiff said he made a report to the 2nd defendant who confirmed that the first defendant wrongfully erected her wall at where she did and marked it for removal. The first defendant did not remove her wall and the second defendant did not compel her to comply with the order to remove it either. The plaintiff complained that action of the first defendant was a cause of nuisance, embarrassment, inconvenience and costs to him. For a redress, he put in the claims mentioned above.

The defendants resisted the plaintiffs claims. The first claimed that when she started her building operation in 1989, the layout plan of the area did not indicate that any access road passed through her land. She went on to have a quit and peaceable enjoyment and possession of her land till 1997 when she noticed that the plaintiff had also started his building operation on an adjoining piece of land. Where she had her building was not part of any access road.

At the summons for directions, the issues agreed upon for trial were simply “1. Whether or not an access road has been demarcated as lying between plaintiff’s and 1st defendant’s respective houses at Buade” and “2. Whether or not the 1st defendant has in any way built on an access road or part thereof”.

The learned trial judge took evidence from the parties and in his judgment upheld the plaintiff’s claim. He ordered that the first defendant should remove her wall or the plaintiff should do so in order that both parties uses the access road, to get to their respective houses.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the first defendant brought an appeal against it before this court. I shall now call the plaintiff