THERESA FLEISCHER vs EMMANUEL NARTEY OWUSU

Plaintiff’s case By an amended writ of summons issued on 27th February 2019, the plaintiff claimed the following reliefs against the defendant: i. Declaration of title.

Recovery of possession.

Order directed at the defendant to reconstruct plaintiff’s original fence wall and iron gate in its original place or payment in cash in lieu thereof.

Order directed at the defendant for payment of the cost of construction by the defendant of the current fence wall the plaintiff had to put up for security reasons to protect herself at current values equal to the cost of reconstruction of a new fence wall.

v. Order directed at the defendant to demolish the current fence wall the plaintiff had to put up for security reasons to protect herself and to clear all resulting debris from the site.

Damages for trespass.

Damages for trauma suffered by the plaintiff the result of the defendant’s conduct in encroaching on plaintiff’s land.

Damages for loss of use of the three bedroom house plaintiff was putting up but which construction was truncated by defendant through defendant’s conduct in demolishing same.

Perpetual injunction.

x. Costs of this suit and for lawyers’ fees.

It is the plaintiff’s case that on 19th October 1988, she acquired a 0. 46 acre land from one Adolph Nii Nai Clerk measuring 100 feet by 200 feet.

She caused her documents to be stamped and registered and she was eventually issued with a ltc on 10th December 2013 after due publication had been made in the Weekly Spectator Newspaper.

The land was described in the ltc as parcel number 53 block 5 section 82. The plaintiff asserts that her grantor got the land as a gift from Nii Klu Tsuru Nmashie II, Mankralo of Teshie in 1974. The plaintiff asserts that she took possession of the land and has been in undisturbed possession for all these years until the defendant recently disturbed her possession by forcibly entering the land and commencing construction on the land.

In so doing the defendant demolished a fence wall with an iron gate that the plaintiff had constructed around the land to mark her boundaries and also demolished a three bedroom house she had constructed to the lintel level.

She further asserts that the defendant has purported to create a new boundary by putting up a new wall and is also seriously constructing a building on the land in dispute.

The activities of the defendant, per the plaintiff, has created a new cul-de-sac at the end of plaintiff’s house but this used not to be the c