MARGARET AFRIYIE v. ISAAC BOAKYE

The plaintiff’s claim is as follows:

“1. Declaration of title to a house

2. General damages for trespass

3. An order for injunction”

The relevant facts of the case are that the defendant is a son of a sister of the plaintiff. The

defendant’s mother is now deceased. The disputed house was the self-acquired property

of the mother of the plaintiff, Akua Boakyewaa (now deceased). Akua Boakyewaa had

three daughters. Akua Boakyewaa bequeathed the disputed house to her three

daughters. The plaintiff is the only surviving daughter of her mother. The plaintiff

therefore contends that since she is the only surviving daughter and child of her mother,

the disputed property is now hers absolutely. The defendant for his part contends that

he is entitled to her late mother’s share or portion of the house in dispute. He avers that

his said grandmother gave the disputed house to her three daughters as tenants-in-

common and therefore after the death of his mother, her portion of the house devolved

on him. Initially, the defendants were two. However, the court pursuant to Order 9 Rule

6 of the District Court Rules, C I 59, struck out the name of the other defendant (first

defendant) from the suit as the said defendant was not a proper party to the suit.

After carefully examining the pleadings and evidence, I am of the considered opinion

that the issues for determination are;

1. Whether or not the plaintiff has title to the house in dispute,

2. Whether or not the defendant has equitable interest in the house in dispute which

interest needs to be protected and

3. any other issue or issues arising from the pleadings and evidence.

Before I determine the issues, I will briefly touch on the burden of proof. The law is

settled that it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove his or her case for he who alleges must

prove. In other words, it is the party who raises an issue essential to the success of his

case who assumes the burden of proving such issue. This burden of proof is statutorily

defined in sections 10 (1) and (2), 11 (1) and (4) and 12 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act,

1975 (Act 323). The burden of proof in civil cases and for that matter in land cases has

been further explained in Adwubeng Vrs. Domfeh [1996-97] I S C G L R 660.

I now proceed to determine the issues. The first issue is whether or not the plaintiff has

title to the house in dispute. The plaintiff describes the house in dispute as “situate at

Wassa Akropong Market circle