Nii Ashitey Saasabi and The Chief of Saasabi v. Basharu Ibrahim Agoro and 2 Ors

Procedural history By a writ of summons issued on 6th September 2018, the plaintiff claimed the following reliefs against the defendants: a. Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land lying between Nungua lands to the West, Adigon lands to the South, Adenkesu lands to the East and the Krowe, Nii Anang Nukpa and Ashitey Kwarpong family land to the North covering an area of 2147. 15 acres or 874. 75 hectares.

b. Recovery of possession of all that piece or parcel of land described in paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim.

c. Perpetual injunction against the defendants, their agents, successors, assigns and all those claiming through the defendants.

d. Damages for trespass to all Saasabi lands trespassed upon by the defendants.

e. An order directed at the Lands Commission to cancel the plotting of Saasabi lands done in the name of the defendants or their grantees.

It is the plaintiff’s case that he is the chief of Saasabi and the head of the Saasabi family.

The plaintiff asserts that Saasabi is one of the Tema villages and the lands of Saasabi were acquired by their ancestors through farming, hunting and settlement.

The plaintiff asserts that as the chief of Saasabi he has sued other people in respect of Saasabi lands and has obtained judgments in his favour albeit for the people of Saasabi.

He states that Saasabi lands cover an area of 2147. 15 acres or 874. 75 hectares.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendants have, with the help of armed policemen, entered Saasabi lands and cleared large portions of Saasabi lands and they are claiming that they got the land from the chief of Obosomase.

The plaintiff asserts that the Obosomase people do not have any lands in the area.

The defendants duly entered appearance and filed a defence and counterclaim.

Issues were joined, directions taken, case management conducted and trial commenced.

The plaintiff has closed his case and we are in the middle of the defendants’ case.

Summary of parties’ submissions Counsel for the defendants has brought this application seeking to dismiss the suit on the grounds of capacity.

It is counsel for the defendants’ case that the plaintiff is not claiming any personal right in the property but he has also not indicated the capacity in which he is suing, neither on the writ nor in the statement of claim, and this sins against the rules of court.

Counsel argues that per the rules of court, any action which is brought as a representative action must be stated exp