KWAME AMOAGYEI vs DORA BORTEY

Plaintiff’s case By a writ of summons issued on 6th May 2015, the plaintiff claimed the following reliefs against the defendant:

i. Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Martey Tsuru bounded on the South by a road measuring 170 feet more or less, on the West by Lessor’s land measuring 90 feet more or less, on the East by Lessor’s land measuring 90 feet more or less, on the North by Lessor’s land measuring 150 feet more or less and a road measuring 18 feet more or less and containing an approximate area of 0. 36 acre more or less.

ii. Recovery of possession.

iii. An order for demolition of all that defendant has erected on plaintiff’s land.

iv. Perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant either by herself or her agents, assigns, heirs and workmen from laying any further claim to the land in dispute.

It is the plaintiff’s case that he acquired the land in dispute by a lease dated 22nd October 2002 from the Martey Tsuru family of Teshie, Accra acting through their joint heads Emmanuel Larbi Martei, Mama Martei and Kwao Martey.

He immediately took possession of the land, erected corner pillars and deposited a trip of sand and stones on it.

He subsequently had his title registered and acquired a Land Title Certificate with number GA 39792, volume 45 folio 503. Plaintiff asserts that prior to the issuance of the certificate, the Registration Division of the Lands Commission inspected the property and duly published the said application to the whole world before the certificate was finally issued to him.

He continues that with the issuance of the certificate, the legal title of the land is vested in him.

The plaintiff further asserts that after these events, he travelled out of the country in 2013 and when he returned, he realized that the defendant had destroyed his corner pillars and used his sand and stone to commence development works on the land.

It is the plaintiff’s case that he attempted warding off the defendant from the land but all his efforts proved futile as the defendant was, and is still bent on her acts of trespass and it is only the court that can help him recover his land from the defendant hence the present action.

Defendant’s case In an amended statement of defence and counterclaim filed on behalf of the defendant on 14th March 2016, the defendant denied the plaintiff’s case in its entirety and rather asserted that she is the owner of the land in dispute.

It is the defendant’s case