STEPHEN AMOAKOHENE v. RENE SIAW & ANOTHER
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- E. K. Ayebi (Presiding) JA
- Irene C. Larbi, (Mrs.) JA
- Angelina M. Domakyaareh, JA
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, the plaintiffs sought a declaration of title to a plot of land and an injunction against the defendant, who counter-claimed for the same plot and sought damages for trespass. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, leading to an appeal by the defendant. The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's ruling, holding that the defendant lacked capacity to counter-claim and that the land belonged to the plaintiffs. The case emphasized that evidence must align with pleadings, lack of capacity to sue affects claims, and declaratory judgments are discretionary.
AYEBI, J. A
In this suit, the plaintiffs/respondents herein sued for declaration of title to plot number 4 Block B, Konkromasi and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, workmen and privies from interfering with their ownership, possession and occupation of the said plot.
Defendant herein on the other hand, counter-claimed for the same reliefs for the same plot number 4 Block B but at Apramang, Kumasi.
The defendant also claimed damages for trespass against the plaintiffs.
The trial judge, based on the pleadings and the evidence adduced before him gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs on 3rd August 2012. Dissatisfied with the judgment, defendant appealed to this court.
The grounds of appeal are that: i. The judgment is against the weight of evidence.
The court erred when it entered judgment against the defendant when it earlier on held that the defendant had no capacity to sue or be sued.
The court erred when it entered judgment for the plaintiffs even though plaintiffs failed to call his (sic) grantors.
At the trial court, the plaintiffs sued per their father and next friend, Kwasi Boakye Siaw.
On 2nd April 2002, the next friend of the plaintiffs/respondents acquired plots No. 3 Block B and No. 4 Bock B for them from the Konkromasi Stool.
An allocation note with a site plan attached were issued for each plot by the grantor-stool.
The allocation note on plot No. 3 Block B was tendered and marked Exhibit A and the site plan thereon was marked as Exhibit “A1”. For plot No. 4 Block B, the allocation note was marked as Exhibit B and the site plan as Exhibit “B1”. The plaintiffs say that after the acquisition of the plots, their next friend secured them by erecting a fence wall around them.
During the construction of the fence wall they averred, nobody including the defendant herein challenged them.
The next friend then put up a complete structure on plot No. 3 Block B and then fixed a pipeline for the passage of waste water on plot No. 4 Block B. They alleged the defendant destroyed the pipeline because he claimed plot No. 4 Block B as his.
It is the case of the plaintiffs that in 2010, they started developing plot No. 4 Block B but the defendant laid claim to it, hence they sued him for the reliefs endorsed on the writ.
The disputed plot the plaintiffs asserted, falls within Konkromasi Stool Lands and not Apramang.
Defendant maintained on the other hand that the plot No. 4 Block B is on Apramang Stool land