MADAM CATHERINE ABBEY vs SAMUEL KOFI BORTEY a.k.a NII BORTEY KLAN & ORS
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE K. A. GYIMAH
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involved a dispute over land ownership between a plaintiff claiming to have acquired and developed land, and defendants asserting the land was part of a government compulsory acquisition. The court found that the land was indeed part of a compulsory acquisition vested in the 2nd defendant, extinguishing any prior interests. The plaintiff's possession did not give her rights against the true owner with better title. The court refused to compel regularization of the plaintiff's occupation, holding this was at the discretion of the rightful landowner. The case illustrates principles of land ownership, compulsory acquisition, and the limits of possessory rights against true owners.
Plaintiff’s Case
It is the plaintiff’s case that around the year 1995, she acquired two plots of land, the subject matter of this suit from the chief of Klagon Nii Adjei Otoo Kwadjan I but the documents covering the land were made in the name of her two children Richard and Francis Abbey.
She subsequently constructed a three bedroom house and five stores on the land but a greater part of the said property was demolished after the 3rd defendant, on the instruction of the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants, had put up an expired “Removal Notice” on the property.
The plaintiff claims that her property was the only property that was demolished in the area.
It is the plaintiff’s case that she decided to change the documents covering the land into her name and she was firstly directed to see the Tema Mantse Nii Adjei Kraku II who took an amount of GH¢1, 300. 00 but never gave her any documents covering the land.
She claims she was subsequently directed to see the 1st defendant who demanded an amount of GH¢5, 500. 00 for the preparation of the documents.
She paid GH¢3, 500. 00 of the amount demanded but the 1st defendant has not given her any documents covering the land.
The plaintiff further asserts that subsequent to the removal notice, she went to see the officials of the 3rd defendant and they in turn directed her to the 2nd defendant.
Officials of the 2nd defendant also directed her to see the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant assured her that she would be compensated for the damage to her property which damage she estimates at about GH¢120, 000. 00. It is further the plaintiff’s case that she was informed by one Nii Anum Keteke Akuoko I, chief of Klagon that in 1996, the 4th defendant, through the Tema Traditional Council, released some of the lands to the people of Klagon and that her land falls within the said released lands.
The plaintiff asserts that the defendants have given her land to a third party who is attempting to clear the debris to start construction of his own property and that officials of the 4th defendant have been harassing her in an attempt to take over the land from her.
The plaintiff therefore claims that if the defendants are not restrained by the court, they will use ‘crude’ means to take the land from her.
By an amended writ of summons and statement of claim filed on 26th July 2012, the plaintiff therefore claimed the following reliefs against the defendants:
i. An order directed against the defendants to pay for the three be