ODONKOR AND OTHERS v. BOTCHWAY
1991
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- AMPIAH
- AMUAH
- ADJABENG JJ.A
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Contract Law
1991
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff-respondent sued for damages and a perpetual injunction claiming ownership of land which the defendants-appellants argued was held by permission. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that long and undisturbed possession established ownership. The defendants' counterclaim for title was struck out due to irregular filing. The trial courts judgment was upheld on appeal, concluding the plaintiffs family had ownership rights due to prolonged possession and lack of action by the defendants to assert their claimed ownership.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Accra. The plaintiff-respondent herein claimed for himself and on behalf of his Nii Armah Sogblah family of Osu damages for trespass by the defendant-appellants herein to a piece of land at Haatso on which there is the village Haatso, lying north of the University of Ghana, Legon, Accra. He also claimed for an order of perpetual injunction. The defendants as members of the Odai Ntow or Ashong Dzemawung family resisted the plaintiff's claim and asserted that the plaintiff's family being on the land only by permission of the defendants' family, they have no right to claim damages against them for trespass. There was an attempt to counterclaim for a declaration of title, forfeiture and ejectment by the defendants but unfortunately the counterclaim as part of a statement of defence filed irregularly was struck out. There was no appeal against the striking out and no attempt was made to regularise the filing. This action was considered with reference to the defence filed on 3 April 1987.
Since the plaintiff had claimed for an order of perpetual injunction together with his claim for damages for trespass, he was required on the authorities to establish title also to the land in dispute: see Kponuglo v. Kodadja (1933) 2 W.A.C.A. 24, P.C. The onus of proof also fell on the plaintiff to establish his own case and not to rely on the weakness of the defence.
At the close of the trial, the learned trial judge found for the plaintiff and declared him owner of the land. He also awarded him damages and ordered perpetual injunction against the defendants, their agents, servants, licensees or otherwise. It is against this judgment of 11 October 1990 that the defendants have appealed.
The defendants filed many grounds of appeal but I think the gravamen of their complaint against the judgment was that as the plaintiff's family was on the land by leave and licence of the defendants' family, the plaintiff’s family could not have been declared owners of the land simply because they have been in long and undisturbed possession of the land. They contended further that the plaintiff had failed to establish the extent of land granted his family.
Although the defendants attempted to establish possession of some portions of the land in themselves, the evidence overwhelmingly [p.4] shows that ever since the plaintiff’s family took possession of the land, save for the recent acts of the defendants which prompted this action,