|
JUDGMENT
BY COURT:
The Plaintiff by his writ issued
on 7th March, 2008,
claimed the following.
a)
Declaration of Title to all that
piece of land situate and lying
at New Ningo on site plans
referred to as AB and BA
respectively.
b)
Deletion of the names of
Defendants from the records of
the Lands Commission.
c)
Perpetual Injunction to restrain
Defendants, their agents,
assigns etc. from interfering
with Plaintiff’s interest.
d)
Cost.
The Statement of Claim that
accompanied the Writ did not
mention the boundary of the land
in dispute, except that it
mentioned two site plans. These
Site Plans were admitted as
exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’.
These Site Plans were prepared
by a Licensed Surveyor and were
approved by the Regional
Surveyor of the Greater Accra
Region on 7th
February, 2007. Even though the
Defendants were served, they
failed and or refused to enter
appearance, and Interlocutory
Judgment was entered against the
Defendants on 15th
May, 2009.
The entry of Interlocutory
Judgment and the return date for
proof of title was served on the
Defendants by substitution.
There was Proof of Service to
the effect that the Order of
Substituted Service of the
Interlocutory Service were
posted on the structure on the
land, on 3rd
December, 2009.
On 19th January,
2010, the Plaintiff gave
evidence on how he came by the
land, and tendered the two Site
Plans mentioned in his Writ and
in the Statement of Claim. The
Plaintiff led evidence on his
root of title and tendered the
documents given to him by his
grantors as exhibits ‘C’ and
‘E’. The Plaintiff also called
P. W. 1 Adjei Narh and P.W. 2
Kwame Okpata all of whom said
they shared boundary with the
Plaintiff’s mother, and also
sold parts of their various
lands to the Plaintiff.
Since the evidence of the
Plaintiff and his witnesses have
not been controverted, I accept
same as the truth. Ordinarily,
a Plaintiff who fails to
establish his boundaries to a
particular land that he claims
must loose, since a judgment for
declaration of title and an
Order for Injunction must be
referable to an identifiable
land, as was held in Anane vrs.
Donkor (1965) GLR 188 at page
192. Even though in this case
the Plaintiff did not name his
boundary owners, he tendered
exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ as the site
plans covering his land.
In Agyei Osei and others vrs.
Adjeifio and others (2007-08) SC
GLR 449, the Supreme Court per
Brobbey JSC at page 504 said
“….. In the instant case, the
Defendants did not object to the
tendering of the Site Plan at
the trial ….. The fact of
allowing the Site Plan to be
tendered in evidence without
objection may give a slightly
deferent twist to the issue at
stake. Having gone in without
objection or challenge the Site
Plan may be considered as
unchallenged evidence. Once the
document is accepted as an
exhibit, it forms part of the
record before the trial Court to
be evaluated at the end of the
trial, for what it is worth.
In this case, the Plaintiff in
his pleading gave the indication
that the land that he is
claiming is as shown in two site
plans, described as ‘AB’ and
‘BA’. At the trial he tendered
these Site Plans as exhibits ‘A’
and ‘B’. He also called two
witnesses, who gave evidence
that they shared boundaries with
the Plaintiff’s mother, and they
sold parts of their land to the
Plaintiff.
I therefore accept the evidence
of the Plaintiff, and enter
Judgement for him as follows:
a)
The Plaintiff is declared title
to all that piece and parcel of
land situate and lying at New
Ningo as shown on exhibits ‘A’
and ‘B’.
b)
Lands Commission, Accra is
ordered to delete the names of
Elizabeth Ahenkan, Isaac G. Dodi,
Joshua Nii Ofosu Larbie and Ibba
Salvabore, being the Defendants
in the above named suit, from
their records, as the persons
noted for the plots covered by
the site plans, i.e. Exhibits
‘A’ and ‘B’.
c)
The Defendants, their agents,
assigns, privies etc. are
perpetually restrained from
interfering with the Plaintiff’s
interest in the said land.
(SGD.)MR. JUSTICE S.H.
OCRAN
Justice of
the High Court
Counsel: Mr.
C.K. Mintah for Plaintiff.
|
