|
On 06-08-2009, the plaintiff
issued a writ in this court
claiming the following reliefs:
1.
A declaration of title to all
that parcel of land situate,
lying and being at Adenta, Accra
and bounded on the North by
Agbawe family land measuring 600
feet more or less on the East by
existing motor road measuring
100 feet more or less on the
South by Agbawe family land
measuring 600 feet more or less
and on the West by Agbawe family
level measuring 200 feet more or
less and covering an approximate
area of 1.38 acres which said
piece or parcel of land is more
or less particularly delineated
on the site plan.
2.
Recovery of possession.
3.
Damages for trespass.
4.
Perpetual injunction restraining
the defendant, his servants and
agents from interfering with the
land in dispute.
In their statement of claim, the
plaintiffs aver that they are
the administrators and
beneficial owners of the estate
of Marcus Hughes who died on the
17th day of April,
2003. The late Marcus Hughes, in
his life time, acquired the
piece and parcel of land
described above from the Agbawe
family of La-Accra through one
Stanley Newton Acquaye in 1977
and paid ˘40,000.00 (old
currency) which is now GH˘40.00
and the latter issued the former
with a temporary receipt which
was registered in the Deeds
Registry and Stamped as No. AC
4645/77. Later on 28-10-1983,
Marcus Hughes and Stanley Newton
Acquaye executed a deed of
conveyance which was stamped as
No. AC 6249/83 and given Land
Registry No. 3674/1983. The deed
of conveyance made reference to
the temporary receipt which was
stamped as No. AC 4645/77.
The plaintiffs further aver that
Marcus Hughes took possession of
the land, cleared the weeds and
erected a fence wall around the
land he acquired and exercised
rights of ownership thereon
without any disturbance from any
quarter until the defendant’s
father, by name Richard
Segbedzi, trespassed on the said
land. As a result, Marcus Hughes
caused his solicitors, Tawia
Adamafio and Associates, to
write to Richard Segbedzi on
06-01-1984.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs
allege that the defendant
herein, in 1993, went onto the
said land and, in consert with
others, dug a pit latrine
without the consent or approval
of Marcus Hughes as a result of
which the latter sued them at
the Circuit Court. When the
defendant and his accomplice
trespassers were served with
writ of summons they abated all
further acts of trespass; as
such Marcus Hughes abandoned the
action.
The plaintiffs contend further
that the defendant herein used
to threaten Marcus Hughes with
cutlass and some of these
threats were reported to the
Airport and Madina police
stations. Now, the defendant and
his relations are claiming that
the land belong to their father
and as a result they have rented
portions of it to artisans who
are now operating all sorts of
workshops on it. This has
prompted the plaintiffs to
institute the instant action.
The defendant in his defence
avers that his late father
Richard Segbedzi acquired two
adjoining plots of land from the
same Stanley Newton Acquaye. A
search he conducted at the Lands
Commission reveals that the said
Stanley Newton Acquaye acquired
the said land from Nii Adjei
Kplen II and his elders. Stanley
Newton Acquaye, therefore,
directed the defendant’s father
to Nii Adjei Kplein II and his
elders for the conveyance to be
executed and same was done on
15-09-1974 and registered at the
Lands Commission as No. AC
8438/76. In 1997, the
defendant’s father registered
the land in accordance with the
Land Title Registration Law,
1986.
The defendant avers further that
his father shares boundary with
Marcus Hughes’ land which he had
fenced. His father reared
chickens on part of the land,
had coconut farm on part, and
the unused part he made his sons
and labourers weed same to
register his ownership.
The defendant denies any
trespass by his father on Marcus
Hughes land. He also denies
trespassing on Marcus Hughes
land and says that he dug a
latrine on his father’s land and
Marcus Hughes sued him at the
Circuit Court but later
abandoned the case because he
realized that it was baseless.
The defendant, therefore, says
that he and his relatives are
legitimately on their father’s
land so whatever they are doing
thereon is legitimate. As such,
the plaintiffs are not entitled
to their claims. The defendant
thus counterclaims against the
plaintiff for the following
reliefs:
a.
A declaration of title to all
that piece or parcel of land
described and covered by the
Land Title Certificate of his
father no. GA 15834 dated
18-03-1997 which shares boundary
on one side with the land of
Marcus Hughes.
b.
Right of peaceful enjoyment of
the said land.
c.
Perpetual injunction restraining
the plaintiffs, their agents,
assigns and all those who derive
their title through them from in
any way or by any means
whatsoever interfering with the
rights of the defendant or his
relatives or assigns with
regards to the said property.
From the pleadings and the
evidence, I have no difficulty,
which I would show hereunder,
that this litigation, provoked
by the plaintiffs, is needless
and ill advised. The land in
dispute forms part of a larger
portion of land originally owned
by the Agbawe family of Labadi,
Accra. On 20-12-1969, the Agbawe
family granted and conveyed a
portion of this land to one
Stanley Newton Acquaye. The
portion conveyed measures 600
feet more or less to the North
and South and 200 feet to the
East and West (See Exhibit C).
Samuel Newton Acquaye, on
08-02-1977, sold a portion of
his land measuring 600 feet more
or less to North and South and
100 feet to the East and West to
Samuel Marcus Hughes. This sale
was subsequently further
evidenced by a conveyance
between the parties dated
28-10-1983 (See Exhibit D).
It is, therefore, obvious from
Exhibits C and D which have been
tendered by the plaintiffs that
the portion of land that Marcus
Hughes acquired from Stanley
Newton Acquaye is less than what
the latter acquired from the
Agbawe family. More
specifically, Marcus Hughes was
granted 600 feet x 100 feet of
Stanley Newton Acquaye’s land.
Stanley Newton Acquaye retains
the other 600 feet x 100 feet.
So, the plaintiffs averments
contained in paragraphs 2, 3 and
4 in particular cannot be wholly
true. For clarity of reasoning,
I would hereunder quote the said
averments.
“2. Plaintiffs aver that during
the life time of the said Marcus
Hughes, he acquired a piece and
parcel of land at Adenta from
the Agbawe family, La-Accra.
3. The land is situate, lying
and being at Adenta, Accra and
bounded on the North by Agbawe
family land measuring 600 feet
more or less on the East by
existing Motor Road measuring
100 feet more or less on South
by Agbawe family land measuring
600 feet more or less on
the West by Agbawe family land
measuring 200 feet more
or less and covering an
approximate Area of 1.38 Acres
which said piece or parcel of
land is more or less
particularly delineated on the
site plan. (my emphasis).
4. That in 1977 Marcus Hughes
acquired the parcel of land
described in paragraph 3 above
from Stanley New Acquaye and
paid ˘40,000.00 (forty thousand
cedis) for it for which the said
Acquaye issued him with a
Temporary receipt.”
As indicated above, the evidence
of the plaintiffs in support of
the above averment, particularly
in Exhibit D, shows that Marcus
Hughes did not acquire the
portion of land measuring 200
feet to the East and West. He
acquired half of those portions
that is 100 feet to the East and
West.
It follows from the above that
Marcus Hughes and the plaintiffs
misconstrued the size of the
land that they acquired from
Stanley Newton Acquaye. So, when
Marcus Hughes and later the
plaintiffs tried wrongly to
claim a further 100 feet on the
western side of their land, they
met the legitimate resistance by
the defendant’s father Richard
Segbedzi and later the
defendant. The defendant has
averred and proved in evidence
especially in Exhibits 3, 4, 5
and 5a that the plaintiffs are
wrongly claiming to extend their
ownership in the western portion
of their land which would be
encroaching onto their land
which incidentally they also
acquired from the same Stanley
Newton Acquaye and the Agbawe
family of La-Accra.
The defendant has shown in his
pleadings and evidence that his
father acquired a piece of land
from Stanley Newton Acquaye
comprising of Blocks 22 and 23
which land he took possession of
till he died. The defendant and
his siblings obtained a Land
Title Certificate covering this
in the name of their father in
1997 (Exhibit 2). The defendant
father’s land share boundary
with Marcus Hughes’ land to the
North. Marcus Hughes and the
plaintiffs have been wrongly
claiming ownership to a portion
of the defendant father’s
acquired land on the
North-Western side which the
defendant’s father resisted till
he died and the defendant and
his siblings continue to resist
same.
From the above, therefore, the
plaintiff has no case at all.
The previous litigation mounted
by Marcus Hughes as well as the
current one by the plaintiffs
over the North-Western portion
of the defendant father’s land
is completely baseless. The
plaintiffs’ action is,
therefore, frivolous, vexatious
and without any merit.
With respect to the defendant’s
counterclaim, the defendant is
just one of a number of
beneficiaries of the estate of
his late father. He is not even
one of the administrators to the
estate of his late father. The
defendant cannot, therefore,
claim for a declaration of title
to the defendant father’s land
covered by the Land Title
Certificate. If such a claim is
granted, the defendant could use
it to deprive the other
beneficiaries to the estate of
his late father.
However, the defendant is
entitled to the peaceful
enjoyment of the father’s said
land. He is also entitled to an
order of perpetual injunction to
restrain the plaintiffs, their
agents, assigns and all those
who derive their title through
them from interfering with the
rights of the defendant or his
relatives or assigns with
regards to the said property.
The plaintiff’s action is,
therefore, dismissed in its
entirety. The defendant’s claim
for declaration of title is
similarly dismissed. The
defendant is, however, entitled
to judgement for the other
reliefs contained in the
counterclaim.
The defendant is awarded cost of
GH˘5,000.00.
COUNSEL:
1. Mr. Peter Boafo for the
Plaintiffs.
2. Mrs. M. Y. N. Achiampong for
the Defendant.
(SGD.) UUTER PAUL DERY
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT. |
