2024
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an appeal against a High Court judgment that ordered the demolition of the Appellant's workshop and his ejection from land adjoining the Respondent's school property. The Court of Appeal upheld most aspects of the trial court's ruling, finding that the Respondent had proven her right to an easement which was blocked by the Appellant's unauthorized use of the land for a workshop. The court affirmed the order for demolition of the workshop but set aside the order for ejectment from the land. Key issues addressed included the Respondent's capacity to sue, application of res judicata, validity of cadastral plans, and appropriateness of costs awarded. The court's decision reinforced principles regarding easements, discretion in granting reliefs not specifically prayed for, and factors to consider in awarding costs.
DODOO, JA (MRS)
The disputants would be referred to as the Appellant and Respondent respectively. In the suit before the trial court the Respondent as Plaintiff had claimed against the Appellant the following reliefs:
1. A declaration that the Pl1aintiff has a right of easement over the public land or lane which abounds the Plaintiff’s land and the Tarkwa-Bonsa motor road.
2. An order to eject Defendant from the land.
3. Perpetual Injunction to restrain the Defendant, his assigns, privies, servants, agents etc. from developing and or using the place as a mechanical workshop whatsoever.
4. An order to set aside any grant or purported grant of the land to the Defendant.
It was the Respondent’s case as found in her Statement of Claim found at pp. 3-5 of the Record of Appeal (ROA) that she had acquired a plot of land at Charlekrom for the construction of a private basic school. It was her case that she had expended a great deal of money in filling the land for the purpose of this school as the place was marshy and waterlogged. She averred further that she noticed the Appellant on the land when construction work began. She said she confronted him and he told her he had been evicted from his previous site and was in the process of erecting a temporary structure for use as a mechanical workshop. She stated further that he had promised to relocate when she began operating her school. She stated however that he had since refused to relocate and had blocked access to her school. She was also of the view that the Appellant’s presence and activities caused nuisance to the school as his work created severe noise and pollution which endangered the health of the school children.
The Appellant in his Defence found at pp. 16-19 of the ROA contended that he was first to acquire his plot at Charlekrom before the Respondent and her husband came in search of land in the area. He stated that from the onset, the Respondent had expressed dissatisfaction at having him, a fitter, as her neighbour. He denied ever agreeing to relocate from the present premises. It was his contention that the present layout of the land was done after both of them had acquired their various parcels of land. He also denied that he had blocked access to the school and asserted that the Respondent’s right of way or easement stood unimpeded.
He also stated that the Respondent had lodged a complaint against him alleging that his activities created excessive noise which had the tendency of impedi