MRS. VIVIAN AKU BROWN DANQUAH v. SAMUEL LANQUAYE ODARTEY

J U D G M E N T

KUSI-APPIAH, J.A.: By the amended writ of summons that commenced the action, the plaintiff, as Head of the Adutso family of Osu, sought against the defendant as Head of Odartey Sro family of Osu a declaration of title to a parcel of land said to be located at Abokobi in the Greater Accra containing over 500 acres. She also sought an order of perpetual injunction against the defendants and their agents, assigns or privies in respect of the said parcel of land. Again, the plaintiff sought against the defendants a declaration that the statutory declaration made by the defendant’s family covering plaintiff’s family land and registered as No. 3303/74 was wrongful, null and void and of no legal effect. Additionally, the plaintiff sought for recovery of possession and general damages for trespass against the defendant. The plaintiff also prayed for an order directing the Lands Commission and Land Title Registry to expunge the said plotting and registration (of plaintiff’s family land the subject matter of this suit in the name of defendant’s family) from its records.

From the amended statement of claim that accompanied the amended writ of summons, the basis of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff is that her family, the Adutso family of Osu, are the beneficial and lawful owners of the disputed land and that while a statutory declaration affecting a portion of the said land had been wrongfully registered with the Lands Commission in the name of the defendant’s family (Odartey Sro family), a lease executed by the defendant’s family and affecting a portion of the same land had also been wrongfully registered in the records of the Lands Commission.

The plaintiff alleged in the statement of claim that her family acquired the land through settlement by her forefathers, and that for over 150 years (since 1854), the family had exercised various acts of possession and ownership over the land.

For their part, the defendant as Head of Odartey Sro family denied that the plaintiff was entitled to her claims. Just like the plaintiff, the defendant alleged that his family acquired the disputed land by settlement over 200 year ago and that the family had exercised various acts of possession and ownership over the land. The defendant contended in his statement of defence and counterclaim that the plaintiff’s family had no proprietary interest in any portion of the disputed land and that the grant of portion of the subject property in a form of lease to individ