NANA AMANKONA DIAWUO I v. NANA AMANKONA DIAWUO I

J U D G M E N T

In this suit, the plaintiff claims against the defendant for the following relief.

a. Declaration of title and recovery of possession of all that parcel of

land consisting of Fifteen (15) plots situate at Kutire No. 1 on

Berekum Stool lands and bounded by the properties of Roman

Catholic Church, Nana Kwame Donkor, river Duegyam and a moter

road from Kutire No. 1 to the Government Forest Reserve.

b. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his

agents, assigns, privies, workmen, etc. from dealing with the

disputed land mentioned in paragraph ‘a’ supra.

c. General damages for trespass.

JOINDER

On 11th June, 2018 the defendant through his counsel filed a motion on notice

to join the Deeper Life Bible Church, of Kutre No.1 as 2nd defendant. The court

on 24th August, 2018 granted the application and the Deeper Life Bible Church

was joined as 2nd defendant.

PLAINTIFF’S CASE

The plaintiff in his evidence before the court averred that in or around 1978, his

mother gifted a parcel of land to him and he provided the necessary “Asida”

in the presence of witnesses to his mother. The land is bounded by the

properties of the Catholic Church. Nana Kwame Donkor, River Duegyam and

a motor road from Kutre No. 1 to Kutre Government Forest reserve. The land

is situate at Kutre No. 1.

Upon the gift, the plaintiff moved into occupation and enjoyed peaceful

occupation of same. According to the plaintiff, when the land was caught up

with development, the land was demarcated into fifteen (15) building plots by

the plot Allocation Committee of Kutre No. 1. As the owner of the land, the

committee gave him Six (6) of the plots as his share of the 15 plots, leaving nine

(9) plots for the committee. According to the plaintiff, he later bought the nine

plots from the committee at the cost of One Thousand Eight Hundred Cedis

(₵1, 800.00 old currency) He exhibited the receipt as Exhibit ‘A’ in evidence.

Plaintiff averred that he later sold one of his plots to the 2nd defendant which

the church later exchanged with a plot of the 1st defendant situate somewhere.

However, the 1st defendant has left the land he exchanged with the 2nd

defendant and has trespassed into other portions of the plaintiff’s land. The

plaintiff said that he never sold any half plot of his other plots to the 1st defendant. He averred that recently he needed some money to pay for the

registration of his child so he contacted the 1st defendant to look