Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff took out a writ of summons and sought the following reliefs by his Amended
Statement of Claim:
a. Declaration of title to all that piece/parcel of land described in the schedule below.
b. Damages for trespass.
c. An Order for Recovery of Possession of the said land.
d. An order of perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendants, their agents, assigns
and/or privies from dealing with the land and or interfering with Plaintiff’s use
and enjoyment of the land.
e. Cost.
f. Any further Order the Court deems appropriate including but not limited to an
Order directed at Defendants to demolish the structure on the land or be
surcharged with the cost of demolishing same.
PLAINTIFF’S CASE
It is Plaintiff’s case that, in 2003 he entered into an agreement with one Mr. E.B. Aryeetey
of the Bretuo family of Chinto (deceased) to purchase a piece of land the subject matter
of this dispute and same agreement was finalised in 2004. The Plaintiff continued and
exhibited receipt of payment for ground rent to the family. However, according to
Plaintiff, the 2nd Defendant trespassed unto the land. Plaintiff concluded that, the 1st
defendant had no title whatsoever and so he cannot transfer same to the 2nd Defendant.
PW1
PW1 only testified that the Plaintiff is the owner of the land in dispute.
1ST DEFENDANT CASE
The 1st defendant claimed that the land in dispute belongs to his late father so in 2004, his
sister gave a part of the land to the 2nd Defendant. 1st Defendant averred that sometime in
2018, the 2nd Defendant began developing the land but he was served with the writ of
summons.
2ND DEFENDANT’S CASE
It is the 2nd Defendant’s case that the land belonged to his late father and a portion was
demarcated to him in 2004 by his elder sister. However, in 2018, when 2nd defendant
began developing the land the Plaintiff served him with the writ of summons.
Defendants closed their case.
The legal issues to be determined are:
i. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to declaration of title to the land in dispute.
ii. Whether or not an order for perpetual injunction should be directed at the Defendant from
interfering with the land in dispute.
A perusal of the evidence shows that the Court shall be saddled with the responsibility
of evaluating the strength of the equities of the Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant.
It is the case that the claim for the ownership of the land in dispute is narrowed down
between the Plaintiff and 2nd Defen