Patrick Owusu v. Theophilus Senanu and 1 Or

Plaintiff’s case By a writ of summons issued on 15th September 2015, the plaintiff claimed the following reliefs against the defendant: i. Declaration of title to all that piece of land described in paragraph 13 of the Statement of Claim.

An order for recovery of possession.

Damages for trespass.

Perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, assigns, workers, successors in title, representatives or any other person or persons who claim through the defendants from in anyway interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff’s land.

v. Cost. Paragraph 13 of the plaintiff’s statement of claim describes the land in the following terms: “All that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at New Bortianor-Accra containing an approximate area of 0. 16 acre more or less and bounded on the North by proposed road measuring 70. 0 feet more or less, on the South by Assignor’s land measuring 70. 0 feet more or less, on the East by Assignor’s land measuring 100. 0 feet more or less and on the West by Assignor’s land measuring 100. 0 feet more or less. ”It is the plaintiff’s case that sometime in the year 2009, the 1st defendant approached him and offered his plot of land for sale to the plaintiff at a price of GH¢3, 500. 00. The plaintiff expressed interest in buying the land and they finally settled at a price of GH¢3, 000. 00 which the plaintiff duly paid after initially paying an amount of GH¢150. 00 for the preparation of documents.

Plaintiff asserted that he proceeded to register his land and in 2017, he was issued with a land title certificate covering the land.

The plaintiff asserted that when he acquired the land, he took possession immediately and exercised various acts of ownership over the land.

He later realized that somebody had constructed a wall around the land without his knowledge and upon enquiries to the 1st defendant, he claimed ignorance about the said act but rather encouraged the plaintiff to go onto the land and work on it.

The plaintiff further asserted that he later got a call from a certain man who claimed that he had bought the land in dispute from the 1st defendant.

The plaintiff further stated that he reported the matter to the police and at the police station, it emerged that the 1st defendant had re-sold the land to the 2nd defendant.

It is the plaintiff’s case that the 2nd defendant has trespassed on his land and it is only an intervention from this honorable court that will curtail the acts of tr