MR. & MRS. BEN ANIM ANSAH v. PROF. S.K.A. DANSO

J U D G M E N T

DENNIS ADJEI, J.A.:

On 28th May, 2008 the High Court, Swedru gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents herein against the defendant/appellant for:

“i. A declaration of title to all that piece and parcel of land situate, lying at Adupong Kpehe, Kasoa in the Central Region.

ii. Recovery of possession

iii. GH¢20,000.00 as special damages and

iv. GH¢33,000.00 as general damages

v. An Order for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant, his agents, servants and all those claiming title through him from interfering with the disputed property.

The brief facts of the case culminating in this appeal were that the plaintiffs acquired the disputed land and had it registered at the Lands Commission Secretariat. The plaintiffs laid foundation on the plot. The defendant asserted adverse claim to the land. The defendant thereafter pulled down the uncompleted structure on the plaintiffs said plot under the impression that the plaintiffs have trespassed unto his plot. The defendant insisted that his plot was different from that of the plaintiffs and the disputed plot was his. The trial High Court Judge found the defendant liable and granted all the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs.

The defendant dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial High Court filed an appeal against it on 4th July, 2008. The notice of appeal contained only the omnibus ground of appeal that is the judgment is against the weight of the evidence and he indicated his intention to file an additional ground of appeal. On 6th November, 2008, the defendant filed an additional ground of appeal. The additional grounds of appeal have two (2) grounds of appeal namely:

“1. That the Judge erred in granting ¢200 million or GH¢20,000.00 as special damages when the plaintiffs/respondents did not particularize the special damages with requisite proof.

2. That the Judge erred in granting GH¢33,000.00 as general damages for trespass without assessing damages. The figure is excessive.”

The defendants in his written submission abandoned the original ground of appeal. The appeal would be therefore determined on the two grounds of appeal contained in the additional grounds of appeal. I will therefore strike out the original ground of appeal as abandoned. The defendant argued the two additional grounds together but I will address them separately. I will now address ground 1 of the additional grounds of appeal. The plaintiffs in their amended writ of summons per relief three (3)