NANA KWABENA POKU v. KWABENA POKU
2017
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- E. K. Ayebi J.A. (Presiding)
- G. Torkornoo (Mrs) J.A.
- A. M. Domakyaareh (Mrs.) J.A.
Areas of Law
- Evidence Law
- Property Law
2017
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal dismissed the sole ground of appeal, upholding the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff/respondent for the ownership and possession of Plot No. 21 Block A Duasi.
JUDGMENT
DOMAKYAAREH (MRS), J. A.
1. In this appeal, the contest between the parties is for the ownership of a piece of land known as Plot No. 21 Block ‘A’ Duasi. Both contestants acknowledge that the plot of land originally belonged to one Kwame Anokye and his family. Beyond that, their root of title became different. The case of the respective parties as presented to the trial court will demonstrate how.
THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE RESPONDENT).
2. The respondent’s case is that he is the care taker chief of Niwaa Tuapim Stool of Duasi and he brought the action for himself and on behalf of his family. His pleadings and testimony and that of his witness was to the effect that the plot in dispute was originally numbered 14 but renumbered to plot No. 21 Block “A” following a rezoning layout for Duasi. That the said plot was acquired by his uncle Kwame Anokye (deceased) and that they have been in actual occupation of the plot for about 300 years without any interference. That upon the death of Kwame Anokye the subject plot devolved to him as trustee for the family having succeeded the said Kwame Anokye. The respondent said in the life time of Kwame Anokye, one Kofi Samanpa, an uncle of the 1st appellant a brother of the 2nd appellant, was his close friend. That the late Kofi Samanpa requested Kwame Anokye to sell the land in dispute to him but Kwame Anokye refused the request. Subsequently Kofi Samanpa requested to be permitted to pack his cement blocks on the land which Kwame Anokye acceded to since they were good friends. The respondent continued that there was a revision of layout of the town in 1964 but that only changed the plot numbers and did not affect the ownership of the land or the house thereon. According to the respondent, the appellants destroyed between 500 and 800 out of the 1000 blocks that he molded on the plot; That he reported the appellants to the Police and they claimed they bought the disputed plot from respondent’s uncle but they failed to produce any document to that effect; That the Police advised him to issue a writ which he did. He claimed the following reliefs per his Writ of Summons filed on 14/09/1995, namely:-
(i) Declaration of title to and possession of building plot No. 21 Block “A” Duasi
(ii) Damages for trespass
(iii) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents from interfering with the plaintiff’s plot No. 21 Block “A” Duasi.
THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS/