KWABENA KUFFOUR v. ABRAHAM NKWANTABISA AND HAGAR ODURO

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff sued Defendants herein seeking the following reliefs:

1. Recovery of possession of Agona Family land lying and situated at Ayanfuri measured

7.26 acres and sharing boundary with Mallam Issa, Madam Adwoa Frimpomaa and

Ayanfuri – Dunkwa road.2

1. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, assigns etc

from having anything to do with the relief (a) supra.[sic][with the said land]

1. Recovery of the sum GHC 36, 750.00 being Special Damages suffered[sic] by the

Plaintiff and Members of Agona Family of Ayanfuri as a result of destruction of 120

Teak Trees, Building at Floor level, 6 Trips of Sand, 3 Trips of Stone and 3500 Building

Blocks at the instance of the 1st Defendant.

1. General damages for trespass and further orders appropriate in the circumstance of

this case.

It must be said that Counsel for Plaintiff labelled the reliefs e), f), g) and h) for reasons best

known to him. As the labelling does not make sense, I had to adopt the 1, 2, 3 and 4 as above

for clarity.

Defendants counterclaimed as follows:

a) A declaration that the Plaintiff is estopped from initiating the instant action, having

been one of the three principal family members who gifted the disputed land to the 1st

Defendant.

b)A declaration that, the Plaintiff lacks the requisite capacity to initiate the instant

action.

c) A declaration that the gift of the disputed land to the 1st Defendant herein by the

three principal members of his family was valid.

d) General damages.

e) Cost[sic]

I took responsibility over this case as a judge at the stage when Plaintiffs had closed their case

and Defendants were to open their defence. I adopted proceedings in line with the Supreme3

Court decision in Adomako Anane v. Nana Owusu Agyemang & Ors. Civil Appeal No.14/42/2013,

delivered on 26th February 2014 per Georgina Wood CJ.

PLAINTIFF’S CASE

Plaintiff testified through an attorney as borne out by the title of the suit.

Prior to the advent of witness statements, the court could exercise reasonable control as to

ensure that evidence was admitted in a manner that made the interrogation and presentation

as rapid, as distinct, and as readily understandable as might be. See section 69 of the Evidence

Act, 1975(NRCD 323). The court could write the evidence in words appropriate to the court in

collaboration with the parties so there would be clarity. But these days as regards evidence-inchief, it appears