JUDGMENT

KULENDI JSC:-

1. This appeal arises from a judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 18th May, 2016 Coram: Gyaesayor, Korbieh, Dzamefe JJA which overturned the judgment of the High Court dated 23rd October, 2012.

###RESPONDENTS CASE:

1. The Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent (hereinafter called “the Respondent”) commenced an action against the Defendant/Respondent/Appellant (hereinafter called “the Appellant”) in the High Court, Tema, praying for the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that the Plaintiff obtained a valid permit from the Defendant to construct an extension to House No. 1/P-31, Site 15, Community 1, Tema.

2. A declaration that the act of the Defendant in demolishing the extension works on House No. 1/P-31, Site 15, Community 1, Tema is unlawful.

3. An order directing the Defendant to reconstruct the two-room extension to House No. 1/P-31, Site 15, Community 1, Tema.

4. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, its agents, assigns, workmen, and all those claiming through it from interfering with the Plaintiff’s quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the property.

5.General damages for the inconvenience caused by the Defendant’s demolition activities.

1. The Respondent averred that she acquired House No. 1/P-31, Site 15, Community 1, Tema, from the Appellant in 1989. On 10th February 2011, she secured a building permit, numbered BP/C01/04/57, from the Appellant, authorising the construction of a two-room extension to the property.

2. During the construction phase, an officer of the Appellant, Mr. Hackman, informed her that the space between the extension and the adjacent property was inadequate, leaving only a five-foot (5ft) gap instead of the required ten feet (10ft). The Respondent stated that she promptly rectified this defect.

3. Subsequently, on 29th July, 2011, she discovered a notice inscribed on the extension, directing her to halt work and produce the permit, which was placed there by the Appellant. The following day, she attended the Appellant’s office and met with one Mr. Acquah, later identified as the Appellant’s Development Officer.

4. At that meeting, she was informed that certain individuals had raised objections to her construction of the extension to her property. She was informed that a meeting would be convened between herself and the complainants, which would be moderated by the Appellant, to resolve the matter, and that she would be duly notifie