KWABENA GYETUAH v. KWAKU TWUMASE

The plaintiff’s claim is as follows:

“a. where defendant is constructing his nature’s call is the property of plaintiff.

b. General Damage for trespass

c. An Order for Perpetual Injunction.”

The case of the plaintiff as gathered from his pleadings and evidence is that his late father

acquired a piece of land at Wasa Dompuase many years ago. He avers that in June, 2021,

the defendant encroached in to the said land, erecting a toilet facility.

The case of the defendant as gleaned from his pleadings and evidence is that the land in

dispute is the property of his late grandfather, Opanin Ntim. He avers that after the death

of his said grandfather, his (defendant’s) uncle, one Kojo Kwaa succeeded him. The

defendant asseverates that his said uncle made him a caretaker of the land in dispute and

that he has been on the land for a long time without hindrance.

After carefully examining the reliefs, the pleadings and evidence, I am of the considered

opinion that the central issue for determination is whether or not the plaintiff has title to

the land in dispute. For what constitutes title to land, see Deliman Oil Company Ltd. Vrs.

H F C Bank [2016] 92 G M J I per Ackah-Yensu J A as she then was.

Suffice it to state that title to land may take the form of document or series of documents

or possession within the meaning of section 148 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (Act 323). Title

to land can only be declared in relation to a specific piece of land. In other words, failure

by a plaintiff in an action for declaration of title to land to describe the land with accuracy

or identify the boundaries of the land is fatal to his case; see Anane Vrs. Donkor [1963]

GLR 188; Akoto Vrs. Kavege [1984-86] GLR 385 and Yawson Vrs. Mensah [2012] 38

M.L.R.G. 121. In the instant case, the plaintiff’s action is for declaration of title to “where

the defendant is constructing his nature’s call”. Clearly, the land in dispute has not been

properly identified. The size of the said land is also not known. If the plaintiff is declared

title owner to the land in dispute, how will he execute the judgment since the land is not

properly identified?

Neither the plaintiff nor his single witness led sufficient evidence to establish the identity

of the land. The plaintiff did not even tender in evidence a site plan of the alleged land

in dispute. Clearly, the plaintiff has not accurately described the land in dispute. There

is no need to multiply the reasons for the d