Mathew Kuma Mensah v Ernest Antwi Oti Boateng

The principle of law is that where the equities are equal, the first in time prevails. Both parties in this suit trace their root of title first from Nii Boafo Danyina Nse 1, Weija Dzasetse and acting Weija Mantse, and subsequently by reason of searches which showed that the land belonged to the Gawe Kwatei family, from Nii Adam Kwatei Quartey, head and legal representative of the Gbawe Kwatei family of Accra with the consent and concurrence of the principal elders of the said family.

Case of Plaintiff

The Plaintiff is a Ghanaian and owner of a parcel of land at Gbawe North in the Ga South Municipality as described herein as the subject matter of dispute. The Defendant is a trespasser who has encroached on the Plaintiff’s land. The Plaintiff avers that by an

indenture dated 23rd January, 2020 the Plaintiff acquired the land the subject matter of dispute from the Gbawe Kwatei family and immediately took possession of the land by constructing a fence wall around the land and placing building materials on same. That he further took steps to have his land documents stamped and registered with the lands valuation division of the lands commission. That he has been in quiet possession of the property until recently when the Defendant began trespassing unto same by damaging Plaintiff’s fence wall and destroying Plaintiff’s building materials on the land. According the Plaintiff he reported the Defendant to the Gbawe Police station but the issue had not been resolved after several efforts by Plaintiff to curtail the situation proved futile. Again Plaintiff avers that he was further compelled to report the Defendant to the Director General/CID at the CID headquarters yet Defendant will not relent on his unlawful acts against Plaintiff’s land. That the Defendant is bent on depriving the Plaintiff the use of his land unless this court intervenes.

Wherefore Plaintiff claims the following reliefs against the Defendant;

a. A declaration of title of all that piece or parcel of land situate being an lying at Gbawe North in the Ga South Municipality in the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana and containing an approximate are of 0.310 Acre and bounded on the North by Gbawe Kwatei family land measuring on that side 185.0 feet more or less on the East by a road measuring on that side73.0 feet more or less on the South by Gbawe Kwatei family land measuring on that side 185 feet more or less and on the West by a road measuring on that side 73.0 feet and which land more particularly delineated on the site plan therein

b. Recovery of possession

c. Damages for trespass

d. A perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his assigns agents, workmen or any other person claiming title through the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s land

e. Cost including legal fees.

Case of Defendant

Defendant filed a statement of defence and counter claim on the 30th of August, 2022 and denied each and every allegation in the statement of claim except what he had expressly admitted. According to the Defendant he acquired the land the subject matter of dispute by a leasehold from the Gbawe Kwatei family of Accra which was registered at the lands commission as LVDGAST121085962021. That he went ahead to register the land by going through the various processes at the lands commission and got a land certificate No. GA98724 in July 2022 that it is not true that the Plaintiff took immediate possession of the land in dispute by constructing a fence wall around the land and placed building materials on same. That when the land was acquired there was only a dwarf wall constructed by the Defendant’s grantors Illiasu Mummuni a.k.a. Carlos in the middle of the land which the Defendant demolished to make the land purchase complete. That the land the subject matter of this dispute is at the moment vacant with only building materials like sand, stones, cement blokes placed thereon by the Defendant. The Defendant has not trespassed unto the Plaintiff’s land. The Plaintiff brought land guards and constructed a dwarf wall on the land in their quest to take a portion of the land from the Defendant but the Defendant pulled the Plaintiff’s dwarf wall down and reported the matter to the Gbawe Police for action to be taken against the Plaintiff. The police advised the parties to go and settle the matter at the Weija Chief’s palace led by the acting Weija Chief Nii Dzaase which the Gbawe Police played a significant role in the settlement.

At the settlement the Defendant informed the Weija chief that a search conducted at the lands commission reveals that the land in in dispute does not belong to the Weija Stool but belongs to the Gbawe Kwatei family. Based on this revelation the Plaintiff attempted to see the Gbawe Kwatei family in an attempt to place an injunction on the Defendant’s indenture but it failed because the Gbawe Kwatei family noticed that the Plaintiff’s site plan was not accurate as the land describe thereon lies further away from the land in dispute. The Gbawe Kwatei family decided to regularize the Defendant’s indenture by signing same together with a letter of consent for onward processing of the land certificate which was subsequently granted to the Defendant. The Plaintiff is not entitled to his claim.

COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant counterclaims as follows:

i. All that piece or parcel of land situate lying and being at Gbawe in the Weija/Gbawei Municipal Assembly in the Greater Accra Region of the republic of Ghana bounded on the North by Gbawe Kwatei family land measuring on that side 88.0ft more or less on the East by a road measuring on that side 113.7ft more or less on the South by Gbawe Kwatei family land measuring on that side

92.1ft more or less on the West by Gbawe Kwatei family land measuring on that side 113.3ft more or less and containing an approximate area of 0.23 Acre

ii. Recovery of possession of land as described by defendant

iii. Damages for trespass

iv. Cost of this litigation

Plaintiff filed a reply to statement of defence and defence to counterclaim on 15th December, 2022. The Plaintiff joins issue generally with Defendant on the statement of defence and counterclaim and denies each allegation of fact contained herein as if same were set out in extenso and denied seriatim. Defendant will be put to strict proof. Defendant is not entitled to any of the claims contained in his counterclaim.

Issues set down for trial after close of pleadings

1. Whether or not the Plaintiff was in possession of the parcel of land the subject matter of the dispute

2. Whether or not the Defendant has trespassed on the land in dispute

3. Whether or not the Defendant demolished the Plaintiff’s structures earlier built on the land

4. Any other issues arising from the pleadings Additional issues

5. Whether or not the Plaintiff acquired the land in dispute from the lawful/rightful owners

6. Whether or not the Defendant acquired the land from the rightful owners

The parties were ordered by the court to file witness statements and pre-trial check lists after which case management conference was held. Paragraphs 7,8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Defendant’s witness statement concerning one Mr. Attramwere struck out at the trial as they were not borne out of his pleadings. Subsequently the witness statement and evidence of Mr Attram is expunged from the proceedings

Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Defendants witness statement are hereby maintained as they are borne from paragraph 7 of his witness statement.

Exhibits

1. Indenture of a lease dated 23rd January 2020 exhibit A

2. Indenture dated 2nd January … exhibit B

3. Copy of (served or Survey report ?) exhibit C

4. Photographs of demolished fence wall exhibit D

5. Photographs fenced wall and building which was served by witness exhibit E series

6. Defence exhibits

7. Indenture of lease dated 11th March 2021 exhibit 1

8. Correction letter from license surveyor exhibit 2

9. Receipt of payment of monies during preparation of documents at lands commission exhibit 3

10. Land title certificate for defendant exhibit 4

In the case of In RE ASHALLEY BOTWE LANDS; ADJETEY AGBOSU & ORS V.KOTEY AND ORS[2003-2004] SCGLR 420 the Supreme Court held that under the provisions of the evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) the burden of producing evidence in any given case was not fixed, but shifted from party to party at various stages of the trial depending on the issue(s) asserted and/denied.

Both sides to this dispute have made claims before this court and are asking for reliefs based on their respective claims. They therefore bear the burden of proving their claims based on the issues asserted. In HYDRAFOAM ESTATES (GH) LTD V. OWUSU (PER LAWFUL ATTORNEY) OKINE & ORS [2013-2014] SGLR 1117 the Supreme Court held that where a Defendant has put in a counter-claim, it must be proved to the satisfaction of the court because a counter-claim was an independent action. Also, in SASU BAMFO

V. SINTIM [2012] SCGLR 136 AT 155 the Supreme Court held that a counter-claim is a different action in which the Defendant counter-claimant is the plaintiff and the plaintiff in the action becomes a defendant. In a case where the parties are seeking declaration of titles, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction in respect of a piece of land, each of them bore the burden of proof and persuasion to prove conclusively, on a balance of probabilities that he was entitled to the reliefs claimed.

In YEHANS INTERNATIONAL LTD V. MARTEY TSURU FAMILY & 1 OR [2018]

DLSC2488 the Supreme Court held that it is settled and trite law that a person claiming title has to prove:

i) his root of title,

ii) mode of acquisition and

iii) various acts of possession exercised over the disputed land.

This can be proved either by traditional evidence or by overt acts of ownership in respect of the land in dispute. A party who relies on a derivatory title must prove the title of his grantor.

WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAINTIFF ACQUIRED THE LAND IN DISPUTE FROM THE LAWFUL/RIGHTFUL OWNERS

/WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT ACQUIRED THE LAND FROM THE RIGHTFUL OWNERS

Both parties had first bought their lands from the Weija Stool and later through searches at lands commission discovered that the land rather belonged to Gbawe Kwatei family and not Weija stool. Whereas Plaintiff provided exhibit ‘B’ a lease between his father and Nii Boafo Danyina Nse 1, Weija Dzasetse and acting Weija Mantse for the Weija Stool Council on the land in dispute dated 2010, the Defendant had no evidence to back his assertions. The Defendant therefore has no proof to show the court as to the earlier date that he had purported to buy the land in dispute from the Weija Stool.

Furthermore, a new indenture on the disputed land had been prepared by the Gbawe Kwatei family headed by Ni Adam Kwatei Quartey for the two parties over the disputed land. Whilst the lease prepared for the Plaintiff is dated 23rd January 2020 Defendant’s lease is dated March 2021. Whereas the Plaintiffs documents are still going through documentation process, the documents for the Defendant has already been registered with a land title certificate number.

The court finds as a fact the both parties bought their land from the rightful owners which is the Gbawe Kwatei Family.

WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAINTIFF WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE PARCEL OF LAND THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DISPUTE/WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT HAS TRESPASSED ON THE LAND IN DISPUTEBENYAK CO. LTD V PAYTELL LTD AND OTHERS(2013-2014) 2SCGLR where rivalparties claimed property as having been granted to each by the same grantor it was held ‘’that in all civil cases where the plaintiff’s averment are denied the onus of proof falls squarely on him. He must do so on preponderance of probabilities. In the instant case the plaintiff ought to have proved on the preponderanc of probabilities that his grant by the first plaintiff witness in 1999 was valid irrespective of the defence by the third defendant that he had acquired in 1986 the same land from their common grantor….’’

Section 111(1) of the Land Act, Act 1036 states that an entry in the land register shall be conclusive evidence of title of the holder on the interest specified in the land register. Section 119 of the Act also states that the rights of a registered proprietor of a parcel of land whether acquired on first registration or subsequently or by an order of a court, are indefeasible and shall be held by the proprietor together with the rights and privileges attaching to the parcel of land free from all other interests and claims.

Thus it is trite law that the holder of a land title certificate to the land, has an indefeasible title to the disputed land in the absence of proof of any vitiating circumstances (see MRS JENNIFER KANKAM NANTWI AND MARTIN KANKAM NANTWI V. JOSEPH

AMENYA [2019]DLSC 7842). It is therefore not the case that once a person waives a land certificate, that ends the matter. In BROWN V. QUASHIGAH [2003-2004] 2 SCGLR 930 thr Supreme Court held that ‘’Under sections 43(1)-(4) and 48 of the Land Title Registration Law, 1986 (PNDCL 152) the rights of a registered proprietor of land acquired for valuable consideration or by an order of a court shall be indefeasible and shall be held by the proprietor together with all privileges and appurtenances attaching thereto free from all other interests and claims whatsoever. An indefeasible title meant a complete answer to all adverse claims on mere production of certificate. However an indefeasible title was subject to overriding interests such as stated in section 46(1)(f) of the law, namely ‘rights whether acquired by customary law or otherwise, of every person in actual occupation of the land save where enquiry is made of such person and the rights are not disclosed.’’ On the evidence of the instant case the plaintiff did not give the defendant notice of the registration of his lease in respect of the disputed land. Consequently, the plaintiff’s lease registered under PNDCL 152 was subject to the defendant’s right of occupation of the disputed land’’ The court went further to say that there appears to be a mistaken feeling abroad that in land matters once a party gets his title deeds registered on the land Title Register, his title is indefeasible. That of course is not true. The defendant’s evidence has shown clearly that he has been on the disputed land for a very long time. But the plaintiff sought in concert with the then chief of Sempe to take the land from him. The defendant’s land was not vacant land it was part of the fraud to regard it as such by the plaintiff.

In this case before me the Plaintiff therefore bears the burden of producing evidence to displace the presumption in favour of the Defendant’s land title certificate.Again in the light of the fact that exhibit ‘A’ and exhibit ‘1’ originated from the same grantor or have a common grantor, which of the grants should prevail?

The court made an order for a composite plan. The report of the superimposition of the site plans of the parties showed that the land the Plaintiff

Exhibit CE1 is the surveyor’s report. Cross examination by the court of the court expect in proceedings of 26th November 2024 at pages 7and 8 is very instructive:

Q: Am I right to assume that the lands for both parties overlap?

A: Certainly so. The lands overlap. Both on ground and from the site plan as well

Q: if you say the land in dispute is the one described as hatched are you presupposing that the area below the hatched where it has been indicated ‘2’ is not in dispute. And the area between 8 and 1 are not in dispute?

A: For clarity the area hatched is showing the land in dispute per their site plans. However on the ground from 1, 2 and the intersection of the red and green where I want to label C1 and all forms the area in dispute on the ground. So, in other words each party from their site plan they are all showing two plots of land but on of te plot is a common interest to both of them and it also appears that ach party has developed one portion of the land which is not in dispute.

The court finds from the evidence that at one portion of the land there is an overlap in both the site plans of the Plaintiff and Defendant and their claims on the ground. Which of the titles then is first in time?

In the case of JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA V ELECTORAL COMMISSON AND

ANOR SUIT NO. SJ1/05/2021, 4th March 2021, Chief Justice Anin Yeboah JSC (as he then was) reiterated the position that under the law, a petitioner is not bound to testify himself if only he could prove his case through other witnesses or by any other means. He referred to the dictum of Benin JSC in the case of ARYEE V SHELL GHANA LTD & FRAGA OIL LTD (2017-2020) SCGLR 721 at 733, thus:

‘’It must be pointed out that in every civil trial all what the law required is proof by preponderance of probabilities: See section 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975(NRCD 323). The amount of evidence required to sustain the standard of proof would depend on th e nature of the issue to be resolved. The law does not require that the court cannot rely on the evidence of a single witness in proof o f t h e p o i n t i n i s s u e. T h e c r e d i b ili t y o f t h e w i t n e s s a n d h i s knowledge of the subject - matter are determinant factors: See ARMAH V HYDRAFOAM ESTATES (GH) LTD (2013 - 2014) 2 SCGLR 1551. Indeed,

even the failure by a party himself to give evidence cannot be used against him by the Court in assessing his case: this court’s d e c i s i o n s i n R E A S H A LL E Y B O T W E L A N D S : A D J E T E Y A G B O S U V KOTEI (2003 - 2004) SCGLR 420 PER GEORGINA WOOD JSC (AS SHE THEN WAS), AT PAGE 448: AND ARMAH V HYDRAFOAM

ESTATES GH LTD. Referred to (supra). In the last case cited, the Plaintiff did not testify in the action at all and only relied on the testimony of the Court appointed witness, yet he succeeded and this Court considered the process v a li d s o l o n g a s t h e e v i d e n c e r e li e d u p o n w a s c r e d i b l e a n d sufficient to discharge evidential burden he assumed.’’

The Plaintiff in this matter did not testify however that is not fatal to his case once he provides adequate testimony to prove his case. To prove his case, Plaintiff’s witness Nicholas Kwenyevor Mensah testified that he bought the land on behalf of his son, the Plaintiff from Nii Adam Kwatei Quartey, head and legal representative of the Gbawe Kwatei family of Accra with the consent and concurrence of the principal elders of the said family. He tendered exhibit A, indenture dated 23rd January 2020. That the documentations on the land were first prepared for him by the Weija Stool Council in 2010, as per exhibit B a lease between himself and Nii Boafo Danyina Nse 1, weija Dzasetse and acting weija Mantse. After conducting a search at lands commission i.e. exhibit ‘C’ it revealed that the Gbawe Kwatei family had obtained judgment dated1/2/1963, in respect of the land and so Plaintiff approached the Gbawe Kwatei family in 2020 to regularize his acquisition by executing exhibit ‘A’, a deed of lease with the said family. This time round the lease was executed directly in the name of the Plaintiff who has duly commenced the registration process of the land by stamping same at the land valuation division of lands commission as No. LVDGAST27944275202. In exhibit ‘D’ which are photographs of a demolished fence wall, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant demolished his wall and promised to rebuild

PW1, Jubilee K Samuel who is a driver, testified on behalf of the Plaintiff. He corroborated the testimony of the Plaintiff and stated that around 2006 the Plaintiff’s father solicited his assistance about a project the Plaintiff who is his son and who lives abroad wanted to undertake. PW1 said he supplied the building materials that were used to put up the structures on the land in dispute including the building and completion of the fence wall. The main construction on the land began in 2009 and he supervised the building of two bedroom self-contained on the dispute land. Nobody including Defendant came to challenge Plaintiff’s ownership of the land from the time the work began including the fence wall was completed. He tendered exhibits ‘E’ series. Recently it came to his attention that the Defendant has pulled down one side of the fence wall that he supervised the Plaintiff’s workers to erect on the land.

PW2, Theophilus Armah testified on behalf of the Plaintiff and corroborated the testimony of the Plaintiff in its entirety per his witness statement filed on 14th March 2023. In paragraph 7 of his witness statement PW1 stated that he was sent by his family together with a surveyor to accompany the Plaintiff to the site to pick the land and do proper documentations for Plaintiff which he did. That Plaintiff even before they regularized his title documents had already taken possession of the land in dispute by building a fence wall and a dwelling house on the land. That the Defendant is unknown to their family and is a trespasser

In the case of J. K. ACKAH V FRANCIS EGHAN, Civil Appeal suit No. H1/56/2010 dated 9th April, 2014, also provides that, “In the legal parlance corroboration is confirming, enforcing and reinforcing evidence supporting another evidence of the same fact. Corroborative evidence is not a repetition of the evidence but a confirmation of evidence by an independent testimony; it is also the authenticating of a testimony to prove a claim.”

Proceedings of 5thJuly 2023 at page 4 on cross examination of Mr Jubilee Q: Did you build the fence wall to cover the entire land

A: My lady, it covered the whole land and we put a gate

Q: No Mr. Jubilee I am suggesting to you that the wall that you said you build covers only the building in exhibit JKS1 and not the entire land in dispute

A: My lady there was a wall covering the whole plot but later a grader was used to pull down part of the wall

Thus per his testimony and corroborations Plaintiff proved that he acquired the disputed land went into possession by putting sand and stones and subsequently built two bedrooms and erecting fence wall.

The law is that a person in possession of land is presumed to be the owner until someone proves a better title. Possession is nine points of the law- AMANKWA V NSIAH. [1994-95] Pt 2 GBR 758 CA see alos Osei (substituted) GILARD VRS KORANG (2013-2014) 1SCGLR 221, NARTEY V MECHANICAL LYOYD ASSEMBLIES PLANT (1987-88) 2SCGLR 314

Defendant said he bought the land in 2003 from the Weija chief, unfortunately the indenture prepared for him at that time is missing. That one Mr. Samuel Attram took time to conduct his own due diligence on the land and told him that the land sold to him is genuine so he should go ahead and buy same. He also found through a search that the land in dispute rather belonged to the Gbawe stool so he approached them to buy to regularize his interest in the land. He was asked to pay rent fees for the number of years of his stay on the land which he did. Later the Gbawe family gave him his indenture which he attached as exhibit ‘’1’’. He also attached exhibit 2 which is a correction on the land in dispute done by the surveyor. Exhibit 3 are receipts of the various stages in registering the land. Exhibit ‘4’ is a land title certificate.

DW1 Samuel Attra, testified on behalf of the Defendant. His testimony is that he is the head of the Nii kojo Kwame of Weija and Ngleshie of Weija by a resolution adopted by the member of the Nii Kojo Kwame Royal family of Weija appointing him as head of family. (exhibit 5). He corroborated the testimony of the Defendant that Plaintiff is not th4e owner of the land That he knows the Defendant bought the land in dispute because he conducted a background check on the land before he told the defendant to go ahead and buy same because from a check, he conducted the land in dispute has not been sold.

Since

Defendant’s witness Iliasu Mumuni (a.k.a. Carlos) filed a witness statement and testified that he took the Defendant onto the land in dispute when he came to see Nii Kojo Kwame who in his lifetime was the Mankralo of Okortsoshie Negleshie Weija and was the one responsible to designate a family member with a survey (sic) to go unto the site to demarcate land for any prospective buyer. A plot of land was demarcated for the Defendant and he was asked by the Defendant to take care of the land in dispute by weeding it and also making sure that nobody encroached on the land. That the dispute arose when he stopped going unto the land because he got a vehicle to work so the Plaintiff took advantage of his absence on the land in dispute to encroach on a part of the Defendant’s land

Analysis

The Defendant had said it was DW1 Iliasu who went with surveyor to demarcate the land for him when he approached the Weija stool. DW1 in his testimony corroborated this testimony of Defendant. However short of saying that he took care of the land by weeding on same he did not even provide approximate dates or year when the said purchase took place and he could not provide testimony on the subsequent events concerning the second purchase from Gbawe Kwatei family because he after a while was no longer the one taking care of the land.

OGBARMEY-TETTEH v. OGBARMEY-TETTEH [1993-94] 1 GLR 353, especially holding

4 on the vital evidence of a common grantor where it was held thus:

“Where rival parties claimed property as having been granted to each by the same grantor, the evidence of the grantor in favour of one of the parties should incline a court to believe the case of the party in whose favour the grantor gave evidence unless destroyed by the other party...”

The evidence of PW2 Theophilus Armah a member of the Gbawe Kwatei family from where both parties derived their grant on the disputed land in favour of the Plaintiff was not destroyed by the Defendant under cross examination. Thus the corroborative testimonies of PW2 and PW1 in favour of the Plaintiff’s witness established the case of the Plaintiff as the one in possession of the land first before the Defendant came on the scene. On the preponderance of probabilities, the Plaintiff’s evidence displaces the presumption in favour of the Defendant’s land title certificate and so the court holds

WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT DEMOLISHED THE PLAINTIFF’S STRUCTURES EARLIER BUILT ON THE LAND

To prove his case Plaintiff provided exhibit ‘D’ series which included pictures of the rubble from a demolished wall. PW1 also corroborated the testimony of Plaintiff and tendered exhibit ‘E’ series pictures showing a full fenced wall, which he stated that it was the full wall of the Plaintiff before Defendant demolished a portion of it.

According to the Defendant when he first acquired the land there was only a dwarf wall constructed by the Defendant’s grantors Illiasu Mummuni a.k.a. Carlos in the middle of the land which the Defendant demolished to make the land purchase complete. When the said Illiasu came to testify he did not corroborate this portion of the Defendant’s testimony. His testimony was completely silent on it. Since the Defendant’s own witness who came from the first grantor’s family could not corroborate this testimony that they as grantors had constructed a dwarf wall on the disputed land, the court concludes that the Plaintiff’s testimony that Defendant demolished his constructed wall is more probable.

The indenture of the Plaintiff that was executed in 2020 is also first in time to that of the Defendant which was executed in 2021. Therefore at the time the Defendant even applied to register the disputed land from all the evidence before this court the Plaintiff was already in possession. Having already assigned the disputed land to the Plaintiff earlier their grantors the Gbawe Kwatei family no longer had any title to the disputed land to transfer to the Defendant and the attempt made by them to transfer title to the Defendant is fraudulent (see APEAH AND ANOR V. ASAMOAH [2003-2004] SCGLR 226) and so the court holds.

Having found on the preponderance of probabilities that the land in dispute belongs to the Plaintiff the court hereby enters judgment and declares title in favour of the Plaintiff of all that piece or parcel of land situate being and lying at Gbawe North in the Ga South Municipality in the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana and containing an approximate are of 0.310 Acre and bounded on the North by Gbawe Kwatei family land

 measuring on that side 185.0 feet more or less on the East by a road measuring on that side73.0 feet more or less on the South by Gbawe Kwatei family land measuring on that side 185 feet more or less and on the West by a road measuring on that side 73.0 feet and which land more particularly delineated on the site plan therein.

Plaintiff is to recover possession of the said land from the Defendant. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his assigns agents, workmen or any other person claiming title through the Defendant from interfering with the Plaintiff’s land is hereby granted. General damages of GHC5000.00 and cost of GHC5000.00 awarded against Defendant