MARY NTOW vs LATIF ABDULAI

The plaintiff, Mary Ntow, sued the defendant, Latif Abdulai, for declaration of title, recovery of possession, damages for trespass and perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant and his agents from interfering with the land in dispute.

In the accompanying statement of claim, plaintiff asserted that she acquired the land in dispute from Alhaji Ali Yemoh in the year 2004 by virtue of a lease executed between the two parties.

She further asserted that the land in dispute was the subject of a devise made by the late Anum Yemoh (hereafter referred to as the deceased) to her grantor in his last will and testament.

Again plaintiff asserted that after acquiring the land in dispute she constructed a wall around it to secure her property.

According to the plaintiff, sometime in February 2015, her husband received a call informing him of the presence of a trespasser on the land in dispute.

He reported the matter to the Property Fraud Unit of the Police Service whose investigations revealed that the defendant had engaged men to work on the land.

When warned to desist from his acts of trespass, defendant did not pay heed; as a result, plaintiff brought the present action to assert her rights.

On his part, the defendant, in his statement of defence, claimed that he acquired the land in dispute from Hon.

Daoud Anum Yemoh, who was the lawful attorney of the Anum Yemoh family.

According to the defendant, the plaintiff’s grantor, in his capacity as executor of the estate of the deceased, filed a suit at the High Court in 2010 to challenge his grantor’s capacity to deal with the land in dispute.

He claimed that the High Court had dismissed plaintiff’s grantor’s claim.

He further claimed that the Court of Appeal also dismissed an appeal filed by plaintiff’s grantor against the decision of the High Court.

He therefore maintained that he was not a trespasser as alleged by plaintiff but the rightful owner of the land in dispute.

In her reply to the defendant’s statement of defence, plaintiff contended that the High Court decision that affirmed defendant’s grantor’s capacity to alienate family lands had been set aside by the Court of Appeal.

She claimed that the Court of Appeal had held that the defendant’s grantor could not hold himself out as administrator of that part of the deceased’s estate that fell into intestacy until a court of competent jurisdiction had granted him letters of administration.

At the close of pleadings, the following issues were set do