Nii Ayikai III and Love Priscilla Lamiley Nunoo v. Idirusu Hausa and 3 Ors
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a dispute over land ownership in Abossey Okai/Mataheko, Greater Accra Region. The plaintiffs, particularly the 2nd plaintiff, claim ownership of the property through inheritance and a lease from the 1st plaintiff. The defendants failed to appear or file a defense throughout the proceedings. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring title to the disputed land for the 2nd plaintiff. The court ordered the Lands Commission to amend its records to reflect the 2nd plaintiff's ownership and granted a perpetual injunction against the defendants from claiming any interest in the property. The case highlights the importance of appearing in court to defend one's interests and the strength of unchallenged evidence in property disputes.
Plaintiff commenced the instant action by issuing writ of summons andstatement of claim against defendants on 3rd March, 2016 for thefollowing reliefs: (a) Declaration of title to the property identified as all that piece or parcel of land situate lying and being at Abossey Okai/Matahekoin the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana coveringapproximately 0. 09 acre(s) more or less and bounded on theNorth East by a proposed road measuring 44. 9 feet more orless on the North West by Lessor’s land measuring 75. 5 feetmore or less on the South East by Lessor’s land measuring 54. 6feet more or less, on the North West by a proposed roadmeasuring 76. 0 feet more or less.
b) An order for the revocation or cancellation of the entry of the names of the defendants in the record of the 4th defendant inrespect of the property.
c) An order to compel the Lands Commission to amend its records and register the interest of the 2nd plaintiff as the registered owner of the property.
d) Perpetual injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants, their assigns, agents, workmen, representatives or persons deriving title under them from claiming any interest in the property.
e) Costs of this action.
The writ of summons and the statement of claim were served on the 4thdefendant on 15th March, 2016 but they could not be served on 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants so they were served with the processes bysubstituted service by posting copies on the Notice Board of this courtand on the 2nd plaintiff’s premises and one publication in the DailyGraphic of Tuesday, 24th May, 2016. None of the defendants enteredappearance so the plaintiff on 30th June, 2016 filed motion on notice forjudgment in default of defence.
The said motion was served on 4thdefendant on 4th July, 2016 but could not be served on 1st, 2nd and3rd defendants so they were served with the process by substitutedservice by posting copies on this court’s Notice Board and on the subjectmatter in dispute on 15th July, 2016. On 27th July, 2016 the said motion was granted and case adjoined to12th October, 2016 for the plaintiffs to prove their title.
However theplaintiffs filed witness statements to prove their case so the court onthat day ordered that copies of the plaintiffs’ witness statements beserved on the defendants.
Like the previous processes plaintiffs wereable to serve the 4th defendant with the witness statements but couldnot serve the other defendants so on 17th October, 2016 1st, 2nd and3rd defendants