KWAKU SARPONG v. DANSO & ANOTHER

JUDGMENT

KUSI-APPIAH, J.A.:

By his writ of summons in the Circuit Court, Accra, the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter called the Plaintiff) sued the defendants/appellants (hereinafter simply called the Defendants) claiming the following reliefs:

“(1) Declaration of title to the land describe (sic) in paragraphs 3 of his statement of claim.

(2) Declaration that the Defendants are squatters.

(3) An order ejecting the Defendants from the frontage of the Plaintiff’s land and the motorway.

(4) Injunction restraining the Defendants, agents, workmen, assigns howsoever from dealing with the land at the frontage of the plaintiff’s land pending final determination of the suit.

(5) Costs.”

The facts relied on by the parties to establish their respective claims were not complicated. The plaintiff’s case per his statement of claim was that by a Deed of Assignment dated 18th October, 2001 bearing L.V.B. No. 4297/04 and AR/21319/2001 between Herman Adjei Annang the assignor and he (Kweku Sarpong) the assignee, the land the subject matter of this suit was conveyed to him for valuable consideration. According to him, the said land lying and being at Akweteman, Accra in the Greater Accra Region containing an approximate area of 0.16 Acre more or less and bounded on the North by the Assignor’s land measuring 60 feet more or less on the East by assignor land measuring 120 feet more or less on the South by proposed road (Abeka Lapaz Motorway) measuring 60 feet more or less and on the West by assignor’s land measuring 120 feet more or less. The plaintiff averred that upon the grant, he immediately went into possession and erected perimeter wall on the three sides of his land. He contended that the 1st defendant, a carpenter erected a shed and the 2nd defendant a motor mechanic placed a metal container on the frontage of the plaintiff’s land thus denying the plaintiff complete access to the main road. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants’ structures on the land had no approval of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (hereinafter called “AMA”) and therefore were illegally sited. He alleged that all attempts by the plaintiff and AMA to persuade the defendants’ to remove their unauthorized structures have been unsuccessful, hence, the institution of this action against the defendant.

The defendants resisted the plaintiff’s claim by their statement of defence filed on 11th August, 2004. They denied that the land they occupied formed part of the plaintiff grantor’s land. The