Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
A. M. DOMAKY AAREH (MRS), J. A
1. Land is indispensable to human existence.
Although its many would like some ownership of same more particularly to build their place of abode.
And so it is that people of the latter category would fi9ht'~ and nail, legally speaking to protect ownership of land that they have "acquired". This is a consolidated suit in which the plaintiff sued the defendant and the defendant in turn, sued the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant.
In the instant appeal before this court, the plaintiff /appellant herein pursued her perceived rights beyond the High Court to the Court of Appeal.
On 2nd July 2009 she filed a Writ of Summons, at the High Court, Kumasi against the defendant/respondent herein claiming:
(a) A declaration of title to the residential building plot numbered as H/No Plot 55 Block "A" Santasi, Kumasi.
b) Damages for trespass and
(c) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner interfering with plaintiff's enjoyment.
Her case, as per her Statement of Claim was that she was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and that she was granted the subject land by the Essuonwin Stool with the Golden Stool as consenting party.
She was issued with an Allocation Note to cover the property and on 27th October, 2007 a lease was made in her favour for 99 years commencing on July 1, 1994. She averred that after receipt of the Allocation Note she went into immediate possession and developed the property to about 80% completion.
She placed caretakers in same and has bought and brought several doors, windows and their respective frames into the property for use as well as for safe keeping.
She averred that the defendant has by several acts and actions laid adverse claim to the property; that his conduct is most wrongful and causes her immense inconvenience, embarrassment as well as hardship; hence the suit against him.
The case of the defendant/respondent.
2. Per his Statement of Defence, The defendant averred that there is a judgment in his favour in respect of the plot in dispute against one Georgina Gyamfi, the mother of the plaintiff/appellant.
The gist of the said judgment is that the defendant/respondent acquired the disputed plot in 1994 and because the land at Block I A' had not been plotted, he and the other purchasers were given only receipts and asked to wait.
It was in 1996 that he was issued with an allocation.
The 2nd defendant, Georgina Gyamfi who had assisted him to acquire th