UNIVERSITY OF GHANA v. WILLIAM JACKSON ETUNDI

F. G. KORBIEH, J. A.

The brief facts of the case leading to this appeal are as follows: the plaintiff/respondent acquired a piece or plot of land from the chiefs of Borteyman which land was in very close proximity to the land of the defendant/appellant, the University of Ghana’s Nungua Livestock Farm, his land is actually outside the land area of the university.

The plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) enjoyed quiet possession of the land since 2006 and actually put up a commercial building and residential house on the land until he reached 80% of the completion of the house.

According to the respondent, in September, 2009 without any warning to him, the defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) embarked on a mass demolition exercise in the neighbourhood in which his buildings were razed to the ground and all the contents (including a hydraulic drilling machine) totally destroyed.

The respondent averred therefore that he had suffered loss and damage as well as extreme physical and mental pain and suffering.

He gave the cost of the demolished buildings and cost of the machinery as US$288, 448.

00 and accordingly mounted a suit in the High Court asking for the following reliefs: a) A declaration that the defendant’s acts were unlawful acts of trespass.

b) A declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to special damages.

d) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its agents, workers and assigns from interfering with the plaintiff’s title, possession or enjoyment of the land.

The respondent later amended his writ of summons and dropped the reliefs(d) and (f) that he had asked for.

Even though the appellant did not deny destroying the respondent’s properties, it denied that the land on which the respondent had built belonged to the respondent.

It averred that the land belonged to it and that it had given several warnings to the respondent which went unheeded.

It had therefore embarked on the demolition exercise as a matter of right to regain possession of land that legitimately belonged to it.

It counterclaimed against the respondent: (i) A declaration of ownership of the land.

iii) Perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff, its agents, workers and assigns from interfering with the plaintiff’s title, possession or enjoyment of the land.

The gravamen of the respondent’s evidence was that he bought four plots of land from the chiefs of Borteyman after he had conducted an oral search from