Mrs. Esther Ntiamoah v. Ibrahim Sibie and ANOR

On the 25th day of March 2010 the plaintiff issued a writ against the 1stdefendant claiming the following reliefs: 1. “Declaration of Title to All That piece or parcel of land described in the schedule to the statement of claim; 2. Recovery of possession; 3. Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants, agents and assigns from howsoever interfering with the Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment of the land.

4. Damages for Trespass Upon an application by the plaintiff for joinder made on the 14th day ofOctober, 2010 the 2nd defendant was joined to the suit.

The plaintiff on29th day of October, 2012 amended her writ of summons to reflect theorder for joinder.

This suit was discontinued on 4th March 2011 withliberty for the parties to attempt settlement.

The 1st defendant alsodiscontinued his counterclaim.

Settlement broke down and on 5th May2011 plaintiff reinstated the action for the same reliefs against bothdefendants.

It is the case of the plaintiff that in 1980 she and her late husbandobtained a grant of the disputed land from the Nungua Stool.

A formaldeed was executed in their favour on the 9th day of February, 1980. According to her this document was stolen in a burglary.

A confirmatory grant was therefore made to her by the Nungua Stool represented by NiiOdai Ayiku IV.

She constructed a building on the land up to lintel level, constructed a fence wall around the property, and fixed a gate.

Sheinstalled caretakers in the building who roofed the building and lived inwith their children.

On 26th February, 2010, thirty years after the grant to her and her latehusband the 1st defendant went on the property and harassed hercaretakers, claiming the land to be his.

On 3rd March 2010, the 1stdefendant again entered the property assaulted the caretakers, forciblyejected them and completely demolished the property on the land.

Sheclaimed her grant pre dates that of the 1st defendant, and that the 1stdefendant’s claim is fictitious.

She further contended that the 1stdefendant’s grantors, the Odarteitse We, have no interest in her land; the 1st defendant’s registration of his document at the LandsCommission and the acquisition of the land title certificate werefraudulently done.

She particularised the fraud.

The defendants initially filed a joined statement of defence and resistedthe plaintiff’s claim.

The 1st defendant’s defence hinged on the fact thatthe land, the subject matter of dispute, forms part and parcel of a largertract of land the property