K. K. OFORI vs REV. ANTHONY TUBLU

Plaintiff in this action is seeking declaration of Title, Damages for trespass, Recovery of possession and order for demolition f structures on disputed land and perpetual injunction.

Plaintiff has alleged that he had acquired the disputed land from Katamanso Mantse and a leasehold document dated 30/11/1995 was executed in his favour.

But sometime in May, 1996, when Regimanuel Gray Company acquired 640 acres of land from the Katamanso stool his land was inadvertently included in the land granted to the company aforementioned.

Because the company had already registered the grant it was agreed that a deed of variation be prepared and swapping of title was done, and he had registered his title and obtained Land Certificate.

He averred that he has been in possession, having constructed a dwelling house, established Irroko Ltd, created Rutus Green Parks, a Restaurant, Artificial Lakes and canal for Boat racing, Chalets and farms on the land.

EVIDENCE

On 13/062019, evidence was taken in proof of title and the other Reliefs.

This was after Notice was served on the Defendant, who failed to attend Court.

Much earlier, this Court entered interlocutory judgment in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

This Court differently constituted on 23/07/2018, entered interlocutory judgment in Plaintiff’s favour.

And directed that Plaintiff should lead evidence in proof of title.

On 03/10/2018, the Ruling of this Court, aforementioned was served personally on Defendant, the proof is on the record.

But he failed to attend.

On 25/10/2018, Hearing Notice was served on Defendant’s Counsel but he also failed to appear in Court.

The proof is on the record.

In the meantime, witness statement was ordered, and Plaintiff filed same as well as pre-trial check list, these were served on Defendant’s Counsel on 15/11/2018, the proof is on the record, but the Defendant and his lawyer remained adamant.

This Court’s record is replete with Hearing Notices ordered and served with requisite, proof of services but these did not elicit any response from Defendant or his lawyer.

Thus it is clear, Plaintiff has complied with all rules of procedure, leading to the hearing of this action.

In ORDER 36 Rule 1(2) of the High Court, Civil Procedure, Rules, it is provided where an action is called for trial and a party fails to attend, the trial judge may, where the Plaintiff attends and the Defendant fails to attend, dismiss the counter-claim, if any and allow Plaintiff to prove