OPANIN KWAKU AFFUL v. YAW MIREKU AND KING BADU

By the endorsement on the writ of summons issued from the registry of this court dated

7th July, 2022, the plaintiff is seeking the following reliefs against the defendants jointly

and severally;

a. Declaration of title, vacation, recovery of possession and occupation of land.

b. GH¢ 30,000.00 damages for trespass.

c. Perpetual injunction order.

The defendants particularly, the 1st Defendant disputed the afore-stated claims thereby

setting the stage for a full-scale trial of the matter. Suffice it, however, to say at this

moment that from the record, the fact of the instant case are free from complexity. It is

therefore imperative, in my considered view, to recount the respective cases of the parties

as gleaned from the evidence on record in order to give the requisite perspective to this

judgement. It must be noted that the 2nd defendant never put in any appearance, and he

opted not to participate in this trial with impunity, despite service of the writ itself and

numerous hearing notices served on him personally with proof of service put on the

docket by the bailiffs of the court. In fact, bailiffs of this court’s registry had cause to file

report of 2nd Defendant’s disrespectful and insulting behavior exhibited towards them

when they attempted serving him some of the court processes, so his absence in court

was not surprising.

The record also shows that parties were exposed and given the opportunity to attempt

settlement of their dispute through ADR which they initially agreed but later returned

with unsuccessful report and left the court with no option but full scale trial. The court

upon receipt of report that parties preferred battling their disputes in court through trial

ordered them to file their written statements which they did and served same on each

other. The 1st Defendant filed his written statement of defence with a counterclaim

claiming against the Plaintiff the following;

1. A declaration that the marshy piece of land in dispute is owned by the 1st defendant

herein and his family, which said piece of land is situate, lying, and being at a place

known and called Wonawua wonte at Diaso and shares common boundaries with the

properties of Op. kofi Nyame, Nana Obeng, Kojo Bekoe, Ama Nyarko and the Diaso

stool.

2. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff herein, his agents, servants,

successors etc, from interfering with the 1st defendant’s use of land in dispute.

Accordingly, at the close of