KWABENA SAFO NYANOR vs ELSIE NANA AMA OBUOBI

Introduction

This case brings to the fore issues with respect to who is the rightful person to validly alienate Amrahia lands.

Both parties to this suit are ad idem that the land in dispute belongs to the Nii Amoah Okromansah family of Amrahia.

While the plaintiff claims that the rightful head of the said family is Nii Ashong Kojo III from whom he got his grant in 2015, the defendant asserts that the current head of the Nii Amoah Okromansah family of Amrahia is Powell Abraham Ashirifi Gogo but at the time she acquired the land in the year 2008, the rightful head was Nuumo Emmanuel Amenong Kwashie.

Plaintiff’s Case It is the plaintiff’s case that he acquired the land in dispute from the Nii Amoah Okromansah family in the year 2015 through its lawful head Nii Ashong Kojo III who also doubles as the chief of Amrahia.

His search at the Lands Commission revealed that the land belonged to his grantor family headed by Nii Ashong Kojo III.

The said Nii Ashong Kojo III gave him a letter of consent to enable him register his documents at the Lands Commission.

The plaintiff avers that in August 2015, he realised that the land had been encroached upon by the defendant acting through one Kwame Obuobi, her attorney in this suit.

He informed his grantor Nii Ashong Kojo III and further made a report to the Police.

The parties were invited to the Police where all of them were asked to produce their respective documents covering the land in dispute.

Both parties complied and one of the documents that was produced by the defendant was a supposed letter of consent from Nii Ashong Kojo III.

When Nii Ashong Kojo III came to the Police Station, he affirmed his grant of the land to the plaintiff and the subsequent issuance of a letter of consent in the plaintiff’s favour.

He however denied making any grant to the defendant or giving her any letter of consent.

He thus asserted that the letter of consent that the defendant produced was a forgery as the format of that letter was different from the format of letters of consent emanating from him.

The plaintiff also asserts that Nii Ashong Kojo III objected to the registration of the land in the defendant’s name.

The plaintiff further states that the defendant has ignored all warnings to desist from her acts of trespass but the defendant has rather continued her acts of trespass and it is only the court that can order the defendant to cease her acts of trespass.

The plaintiff therefore claims the following reliefs agai