SAMUEL OPPONG ASANTE VS NII KWEI MENSAH & 4 ORS
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE REBECCA N. S. SITTIE (MRS) ‘J’
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
- Tort Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Ghana High Court (Land Division), per Justice Rebecca N. S. Sittie, resolved a land ownership and trespass dispute over approximately 1.9 acres at Dunkonah, New Bortianor-Accra. Plaintiff relied on a 1995 lease from Nii Akotey IV, styled as acting Bortianor Mantse and family head, asserting possession and registration. Defendants countered that Bortianor lands are stool lands registered under LR5/1978, that only the Bortianor Mantse with elders could grant, and that they held valid grants from the gazetted chief, Nii Ogbarmey Ankonam I. Evaluating exhibits and authorities, the court found Nii Akotey lacked capacity and mischaracterized stool land as family land; Exhibit A was void and ordered expunged. Applying nemo dat and constitutional requirements for stool land dispositions, the court held Plaintiff’s derivative title failed, rejected recovery of possession, and dismissed all claims. The court awarded nominal damages to the 4th Defendant and costs to 1st and 4th Defendants; other counterclaims were denied.
Plaintiff issued a writ against the Defendants on the 16th March 2011 for the following reliefs jointly and severally:
I. Declaration of title to all that piece and parcel of land covering an approximate area of 1.9 acres more or less bounded on the North-West by existing road measuring 200 feet more or less and on the South-East by Existing road measuring 300 feet more or less and on the South-West by Existing road measuring 300 feet more or less and on the South-East by Lessee’s property measuring 280 feet more or less situate, lying and being at Dunkonah, New Bortianor-Accra which site plan is attached to Plaintiff’s lease registered at the Lands Commission as AR/2983/98.
II. Damages for trespass.
III. An order for recovery of possession of the land herein before described in (i) above.
IV. An order of perpetual injunction restraining all the Defendants by themselves whomsoever derives title from them, their agents, servants, assigns, privies from having any dealing in whatever form with the land which is the subject matter of dispute.
V. Any further order(s) as to this honourable Court may deem just.
1st and 4th Defendants filed a defence on 20th June 2011 and counterclaimed against Plaintiff. Later with leave of the Court presided by Her Ladyship Justice (Mrs ) Agnes Dordzi a joint Defence was filed by all the Defendants on 8th July 2011.
Plaintiff filed his reply and Defence to Counterclaim on 9th August 2011. At the close of pleadings the following issues were set down for trial:
i. Whether or not as at 14th day of April 1995 Nii Akotey IV Dzasetse and acting Bortianor Mantse and lawful representative of Nii Kwei Arku IV family of Bortianor was clothed with capacity to lease part of the Bortianor stool land to the Plaintiff?
ii. Whether or not the lease to the plaintiff was a valid one?
iii. Whether or not the Plaintiff took possession of the land in dispute in 1995?
iv. Whether or not Defendants obtained their lease from the Mantse of Bortianor?
v. Whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to his claim.
2. Plaintiff requested for an order of the court for a composite plan to be made but this request was not granted.
BRIEF OF CASE
Plaintiff ‘s case is that he acquired the land in dispute covering 1.9 acres from the acting Bortianor Mantse and lawful representative of the Nii Kwei Arku IV Family, Nii Akotey IV Dzasetse and was given a lease dated 14th April 1995. Plaintiff cited the root of title of his grantor as a statutory declaration b