NAANA TANDOH v. GLADYS ENTI AND JONES OFORI ATTA

JUDGMENT

By an Amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed on

23rd June, 2020, Plaintiff claims against Defendants the following

reliefs:

a. ‚Declaration of title of all that piece of land situate, lying and

being at Achimota Mile 7 containing an approximate area of 0.14 acre or 0.6 hectare and bounded on the North-West by

Vendor’s land measuring 112.0 feet more or less, on the

North-East by proposed road measuring 57.5 feet more or

less, on the South-East by Vendor’s land measuring 57.5 feet

more or less, on the South East by Vendor’s land measuring

98.9 feet more or less and on the South-West by proposed

road measuring 62.1 feet more or less.

b. An order directed at the Defendants to remove the metal

container they have erected by the Defendants from the

Plaintiff’s land. [sic]

c. An order directed at the 1st Defendant to remove the new

fence wall and erect same on the old boundary line or in the

alternative an order to demolish the new fence wall and

erection of another in the old boundary line and the cost of

construction borne by 1st Defendant.

d. An order directed at the 1st Defendant for payment of

compensation for the loss of use of the Plaintiff’s bona fide

property.

e. An order directed at the 1st Defendant for damages for

trespass on her 30 feet more or less land.

f. Any further or other cost deem fit by the honourable court.‛

Plaintiff says that sometime in the year 2017, she acquired one plot

of land situate at Mile 7, Achimota from one Madam Peggy Okine.

According to her, she got the land through 2nd Defendant who was an agent for her grantor. Plaintiff says that she took possession of

the land and constructed a fence wall on the boundary between

her land and that of 1st Defendant. She says that prior to the sale of

the land, 2nd Defendant had erected a metal container on her land

which served as a warehouse for 1st Defendant’s construction on

an adjoining land. According to her, 1st Defendant broke Plaintiff’s

fence wall under the pretext of creating easy access to convey

building materials from the container on Plaintiff’s land but in the

spirit of good neighbourliness she permitted 1st Defendant.

Plaintiff says that 1st Defendant disregarded the boundary and

entered about 30 feet into Plaintiff’s land and erected a new fence

wall with the assistance of armed guards. Plaintiff says that all

efforts to get Defendants to remove the container proved futile. It

is the case of Plaintiff that sh