SUSUANA NYARKO v. IBRAHIM ANAAFO

JUDGMENT

At the instance of the plaintiff a writ of civil summons was issued out of the Registry of this

Court claiming the following reliefs.

a) An order of the Court compelling the defendant to remove his fence wall from the

plaintiff’s portion of land.

b) Cost.

To these reliefs the defendant denied liability so in the interest of justice, the parties were

given a hearing.

THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE

Besides herself the plaintiff called there (3) witnesses According to the plaintiff, Defendant

has trespassed onto her land and constructed a wall and had created holes in the wall so when

it rains water passes through the holes and floods her land.

Plaintiff stated that notwithstanding calls from CHRAJ, town and country planning and

Traditional Council, the Defendant has refused to remove the wall or closed the holes. Hence

the instant action.

PW1 Okyeame Adu Kwame’s evidence was that the plaintiff once lodged a complaint against

the defendant at the queen mother’s house (PW2) that the defendant has trespassed on to her

land and contracted a wall and in the wall were holes which collected water into her house

PW1 said they invited the town planning office who accompanied the elders onto the land

and at the inspection it was detected that what the plaintiff said was true so the Town

planning officer marked the trespassing area but the defendant did not come back to the

palace for the final verdict.

PW2, Oduro Daniel who is a Director of CHARAJ corroborated the evidence of the plaintiff

According to the PW 2 with the help of the Town Planning Officer they went onto the land

and identified the area but the Defendant did not come back to the commission for their

verdict.

PW3, R Jokoto, a Technical Officer of Asutifi North Assembly testified that their inspection

revealed that the defendant had trespassed onto the defendant’s land by 3 feet.

The plaintiff closed her case after the evidence of PW3.

THE DEFENDANT’S CASE

The evidence of the Defendant was that he sued the plaintiff before this Court becuse the

defendant had her kitchen on a portion of land he bought and got judgment so when the other

bodies came in he did not heed to their decisions.

The defendant closed his case after his evidence.

LOCUS INSPECTION

This Court at the instance of both parties visited the land in dispute. At the inspection the

plaintiff showed us a wall and the holes she complained of Defendant also showed us the

boundary, us to his land and maintained th