KOLOG DUUN OF KOLOG'S HOUSE, DATUKU VRS BOAR DOK & 3 ORS
April 7, 2025
DISTRICT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- MAWUKOENYA NUTEKPOR
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
April 7, 2025
DISTRICT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
a. A Declaration that all that Piece or Parcel of farmland situate at Datuku bounded to the North sharing boundaries with Tong Yin, to the South sharing boundaries with the Gurimi Kolog, to the East sharing boundaries with the Kulem family and sharing boundaries to the West with the Soozie’s
Family the Defendants in this suit.
b. Vacant Possession of the land.
c. Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their Servants, Assigns, Agents and whoever claims through them from interfering with the Plaintiff’s enjoyment of the land.
d. Cost including Solicitor’s fees.
Statement of Defence and counterclaimed against the Plaintiff as follows:
a. A Declaration that all that piece or parcel of farmland situated at Datuku bounded to the North sharing boundary with Tong Yin, to the South sharing boundary with the Gurimi Kolog, to the East sharing boundary with the Kulem family and sharing boundary to the West with the Soozie’s Family the Defendants in this suit, is the ancestral farm land of the Defendants of which the 3rd Defendant is the current Tindana of Datuku and a descendant of the 1st
Tindana of Datuku (Yaab Tasuu).
b. Vacant possession of the said land.
c. Perpetual injunction restraining the Plaintiff, his servants, assigns, agents and
whoever is claiming through him from interfering with the Defendants
enjoyment of the land.
d. Costs.
The Plaintiff avers that he is the descendant of Naabil who discovered the disputed land more than two centuries ago with Pinabsiee. Plaintiff avers that the relationship between Naabil and Pinabsiee continued cordially resulting in Naabil giving out his daughter to Pinabsiee in marriage thereby becoming the Inlaw of Naabil. Plaintiff avers that following this Pinabsiee gave out the disputed land to Naabil without any conditions and or embumbrance. Plaintiff avers that the Defendants’ ancestors (grandfather) equally had their portion of the land sharing boundaries with the Plaintiff to the West of the disputed land.
Plaintiff avers that Naabil who is Plaintiff's great grandfather exercised acts of pos
AI Generated Summary
This land dispute at Datuku pits the plaintiff, claiming inheritance from his ancestor Naabil and asserting continuous possession, against the Soozie family who counterclaim the parcel as their ancestral land under the authority of the 3rd defendant, the current Tindana and descendant of the first Tindana, Yaab Tasuu. The court analyzed conflicting traditional histories by reference to recent, positive acts of possession and the statutory burdens of proof. The plaintiff’s evidence suffered inconsistencies and failed to identify the land’s boundaries with particularity. Tendered documents of a chief’s ruling were rejected for lack of land description. Conversely, the defendants demonstrated long-standing occupation, including the 2nd defendant’s father’s dwelling remains (Exhibit A) and the 2nd defendant’s birth on the land. Finding the defendants’ traditional account more probable and their possession decisive, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, granted the defendants’ counterclaim, declared them owners, ordered recovery of possession, imposed a perpetual injunction, and awarded costs.