Grace Susu Wetsi v Yussif Iddrisu (alias Alhaji Mandigo) and Trespassers

1.0 INTRODUCTION:

The case of the Plaintiff as captured by her amended statement of claim dated 10th June, 2025 is that the Plaintiff is a Ghanaian citizen currently working for an International Organization and the lawful owner of a parcel of land situate at Adjiringanor (Otano), Accra in the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana.

1.1 The 1st Defendant is a self-styled real estate developer know for the use of thugs, policemen and other unlawful means to deprive

individuals in the Adjiringanor and its environs of their lawfully acquired lands.

1.2 The 2nd Defendants are unknown and unnamed individuals, who by the use of force, arms and land guards, and under the protection of the Ghana Police Service have entered the Plaintiff’s land and have since remained on same, conducting and overseeing illegal construction on the Plaintiff’s land.

1.3 The Plaintiff avers that she is the legal and beneficial owner of ALL THAT PIECE OR PARCEL OF LAND situate lying and being at Adjiringanor (Otano) in the Adenta Municipal Assembly of the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana and bounded on the North-West by lessor’s land measuring 105.7 feet more or less along the Northern Boundary; and bounded on the North-East by proposed road measuring 31.3 and 117.4 feet respectively more or less along the Eastern boundary, and bounded on the South- East by lessor’s land measuring 19.9 feet more or less along the Southern boundary; and bounded on the South-West by the lessor’s land measuring 98.7 feet more or less along the Western boundary and covering a total area of 0.161 acre or 0.065 hectare more or less.

1.4 The Plaintiff states that sometime in the year 1996, she was introduced to one Adjei Bankade who informed her that he was the son and representative of Nii Bankade Tetteh, the head of the Djan Ayoor family of Teshie, owners of Adjiringanor lands.

1.5 The Plaintiff states further that at the time she met the said Adjei Bankade, he was selling several parcels of land at Adjiringanor near the place now known as ‘Ability Square” to many individuals some of whom were known to the Plaintiff personally.

1.6 The Plaintiff states further that she also expressed her desire to buy a parcel of land situate at Adjiringanor from the said Nii Bankade Tetteh, paid the purchase price, and was issued with an indenture covering the said parcel of land in extent of 0.25 acres for a period of Ninety Nine (99) years commencing from 16th June, 1996.

1.7 The Plaintiff says that after she had been given the indenture, she proceeded to take lawful possession of the land by erecting walls around the land and placing a metal gate as the entrance to the property.

1.8 It is the case of the Plaintiff that she tried to start constructing a house on the land but had to stop because the land was always water-logged. She was however able to build a single room structure on the land and put a caretaker thereon.

1.9 The Plaintiff avers that after some years, she was approached by one Samuel Afotey Tetteh who claimed to be the lawful representative of the Ashong Mlitse family of Odaitei Tse We family of Tesehie, Accra. The said Samuel Afotey Tetteh and his family claimed to be the rightful owners of the same land she had bought from Nii Bankade Tetteh, the head of the Djan Ayoor family of Teshie.

2.0 The Plaintiff asserts that Samuel Afotey Tetteh and his family members insisted that they had a judgment from the Court of Appeal dated the 26th April, 1987 which had declared the Ashong Mlitse family of Odaitei Tse We family of Teshie, Accra the owners of the land, subject-matter of this dispute.

2.1 The Plaintiff says that after series of harassment from representatives of the Ashong Mlitse family of Odaitei Tse We family of Teshie, Accra, she was compelled to pay another sum of money to the said family and this family, subsequent to the payment of money by the Plaintiff proceeded to prepare for the Plaintiff another indenture in respect of the same land for a term of Ninety Nine (99) years commencing from 20th October, 2014.

2.2 The Plaintiff avers that about a year and a half ago, most of her neighbours were confronted by a group of thugs ably supported by some police officers who claimed that they had obtained judgment from the High Court which judgment had decreed that all the lands in the Adjiringanor area were for a certain Nii Akwra Boye-Doku family of Teshie.

2.3 The Plaintiff says that although the trial High Court Judge decreed possessory interest in favour of certain individual owners of the land, including her good self, she nonetheless, approached the head of family of the Nii Akwra Boye-Doku family of Teshie in the person of one Samuel Adjei Mensah and regularized her interest in the land by atoning tenancy to the Nii Akwra Boye-Doku family.

2.4 The Plaintiff avers that as part of the regularization process, she paid an amount of Seven Thousand United States Dollars ($7,000.00) to the Nii Akwra Boye-Doku family of Teshie through the head of family, Samuel Nii Adjei Mensah.

2.5 The Plaintiff asserts that she has been issued with yet another indenture for the same parcel of land so that she could obtain land Title Certificates from the Lands Commission.

2.6 The Plaintiff says that from the date of purchase (1996) and after she took control and occupation of the land subject-matter of this

 action, she has enjoyed quiet, peaceful and undisturbed possession of the land and property, without any interference whatsoever from any person.

2.7 The Plaintiff avers that on the 19th of May, 2025 the Defendants in the company of armed thugs and 4 others armed policemen purportedly sent from the headquarters of the Ghana Police Service, forcefully broke onto her land and began frantic construction on her land with the speed of light.

2.8 The Plaintiff contends that the actions of the Defendants amounts to trespass and the Defendants’ said trespass is continuing feverishly despite the many attempts by the Plaintiff to halt the unlawful takeover of her land.

2.9 The Plaintiff avers that the conduct of the Defendants have been a grave attempt to overreach the Plaintiff and deprive her of her legitimately acquired land and cause her to suffer wanton inconvenience, loss of money and property.

3.0 The Plaintiff maintains that all attempts by the Plaintiff to get the Defendants to stop their acts of trespass on the Plaintiff’s land have proven futile. The Defendants have glaringly demonstrated their avowed intention to unlawfully take over the Plaintiff’s land, unless otherwise restrained by this court.

3.1 The Plaintiff asserts that the case has been reported at the Property Fraud Unit of the Ghana Police Service where the investigator in charge of the case informed the parties not to work on the land until investigations were conducted into the ownership of the property.

3.2 The Plaintiff asserts that despite the admonishing of the Police to the Defendants to desist from further developing the land, the 1st Defendant soon after leaving the premises of the Property Fraud Unit of the Ghana Police Service instructed his workers to continue with their acts of trespass on the Plaintiff’s property, working day and night with indecent haste under the protection of land guards and armed police officers.

3.3 The Plaintiff avers that the Defendants have shown without any equivocation that unless otherwise ordered by this Honourable Court, they will continue their acts of trespass in an attempt to rob the Plaintiff in broad daylight of her land which she has lawfully acquired and has been in peaceful undisturbed possession of for many years.

3.4 Based on these facts the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows:

a. A declaration that the Plaintiff is the legal and beneficial owner of ALL THAT PIECE OR PARCEL OF LAND situate lying and being at Adjiringanor (OTANO) in the Adenta Municipal Assembly of the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana bounded on the North-West by lessor’s land measuring 105.7 feet more or less along the Northern Boundary; and bounded on the North-East by proposed road measuring 31.3 and 117.4 feet respectively more or less along the Eastern boundary, and bounded on the South-East by lessor’s land measuring 19.9 feet more or less along the Southern boundary; and bounded on the South-West by the lessor’s land measuring 98.7 feet more or less along the Western boundary and covering a total area of 0.161 acre or 0.065 hectare more or less.

b. A declaration that the Defendants have unlawfully trespassed on the Plaintiff’s land.

c. An order for recovery of possession of the land, subject- matter of this suit, in favour of the Plaintiff.

d. An order of perpetual injunction directed at the Defendants whether by themselves, their agents, assigns, privies, hirelings, workmen, servants and persons claiming through, under or in trust for them, however described restraining them from entering unto the land, the subject-matter of this dispute or interfering with it in any way either by disposing the whole or a portion of the said land thereof or developing or constructing thereon or doing any act or dealing with the said land in any manner however that may disturb or interfere with the Plaintiff’s title and/or rights of possession or quiet enjoyment thereof.

e. Damages for trespass and unlawful damage to the land, the subject-matter of this dispute.

3.5 There is evidence before the court depicting that notwithstanding service of the amended writ and the attached statement of claim on the Defendants they failed to file an appearance or defence to the Plaintiff’s action. Plaintiff therefore applied for the suit to be set down for trial.

3.6 The application was granted and the Plaintiff ordered to file her witness statement and cause same to be served on the Defendants together with hearing notices, an order the Plaintiff complied with.

3.7 It is salient to note that the service of the witness statement and the hearing notices on the Defendants notwithstanding they still neglected/refused to attend court for the trial for which reason the court proceeded with the trial in their absence.

3.8 See Order 36 of CI. 47.

It is salient to note that notwithstanding the absence of the Defendants, the Plaintiff is still obliged to prove that she is entitled to the reliefs she is seeking against the Defendants.

3.9 In all civil cases a heavy duty is put on the Plaintiff to produce the requisite evidence to prove his case. This duty is referred to as:

(a) the burden of producing evidence, and (b) the burden of persuasion.

4.0 Section 11(1) of the Evidence Act Decree says that: “for the purpose of this decree, the burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling against him.”

4.1 Section 11(4) of the Evidence Act Decree says: “In other circumstances, the burden of producing evidence requires to produce sufficient evidence which on the totality of the evidence leads a reasonable mind to conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non- existence.”

4.2 Section 12 states that:

(i) Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by a preponderance of the probabilities.

(ii) “Preponderance of the probabilities means the degree of certainty or belief in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence.”

4.3 Kpegah J. A (as he then was) in the case of ZABRAMA V. SEGBEDZI [1991] 2GLR 221 explained “proof in law| as follows”

“I will therefore venture to state the position to be: a

person who makes an averment or assertion, which is denied by his opponent, has the burden to establish that his averment or assertion is true. And he does not discharge the burden unless he leads admissible and credible evidence from which the fact or facts, he asserts can properly and safely be inferred. The nature of each averment or assertion determines the degree and nature of the burden.”

4.4 It is also trite learning that the burden of producing evidence in any given case is not fixed or static but shifts from one party to the other at various stages of the trial depending on the issue asserted and/or denied.

4.5 It is again trite leaning that it is not sufficient for a party to merely mount the witness box and repeat his averments. He must provide evidence that establishes his case.

4.6 In discharging the burden placed on her by law the Plaintiff testified that she knows the 1st Defendant in this suit, not personally, but by reason of his unlawful activities on my land. And that the 1st Defendant holds himself out as a real estate developer and is notoriously known to be associated with acts involving the use of unauthorized persons, including thugs and policemen, to dispossess individuals within Adjiringanor and its environs of their lawfully acquired lands.

4.7 It is her testimony that the 2nd Defendant are unknown and unnamed individuals who, through the use of force and the involvement of armed persons and land guards, and under the protection of officers of the Ghana Police Service, have entered onto her land and remained thereon, undertaking and supervising illegal construction activities.

4.8 It is the evidence of the Plaintiff that she is the legal and beneficial owner of all that piece or parcel of land situate lying and being at Adjiringanor (Otano) in the Adenta Municipal Assembly of the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana and bounded on the North West by lessors land measuring 105.7 feet more or less along the Northern Boundary; and bounded on the North-East by a proposed road measuring 31.3 and 117.4 feet respectively more or less along the Eastern boundary, and bounded on the South- East by lessor’s land measuring 19.9 feet more or less along the Southern boundary and bounded on the South-West by the lessor’s land measuring 98.7 feet more or less along the Western boundary and covering a total area of 0.161 hectare more or less.

4.9 She continued that sometime in the year 1996, I was introduced to one Adjei Bankade, who represented himself to her as the son and duly authorised representative of Nii Bankade Tetteh, the head of the Djan Ayoor family of Teshie and the owners of the lands at Adjiringanor (Otano), in the La Nkwantanang Municipal Assembly of the Greater Accra Region.

5.0 After meeting the said Adjei Bankade, who was at the time selling several parcels of land in Adjiringanor, near the area now known as “Ability Square”, to various individuals, some of whom were personally known to her, she likewise expressed interest in purchasing a parcel of land at Ability Square from him. She paid the agreed sum and was subsequently issued with an indenture covering a parcel of land measuring 0.25 acres for a term of ninety- nine (99) years commencing on the 16th day of June, 1996.

See Exhibit “A” series, copies of the Indenture and the Receipt evidencing payment of the purchase price for the land.

5.1 After the execution of the indenture, she was granted possession of the land. She thereafter entered into lawful possession of same, caused boundary walls to be constructed around the parcel of land, and installed a metal gate at the entrance to the property.

5.2 The Plaintiff subsequently commenced preparatory works towards the construction of a dwelling house. However, these efforts were hindered and ultimately abandoned due to persistent waterlogging on the land, the severity of which rendered further development impracticable.

5.3 Notwithstanding the challenges posed by the waterlogged condition of the land, she was able to construct a single-room structure within the walled enclosure. She thereafter placed a caretaker in occupation of the said structure as a visible assertion of her ownership and to give notice to the general public that the land had been lawfully acquired by her and was under her possession.

5.4 She continued that after several years of being in peaceful, quiet, and undisturbed possession of the said land, she was approached by one Samuel Afotey Tetteh, who claimed to be the lawful representative of the Ashong Mlitse family of the Odaitei Tse We of Teshie, Accra. He together with his family, asserted that they were the rightful owners of the very parcel of land in her possession, which had earlier been sold to her by Nii Bankade Tetteh, the head of the Djan Ayoor family of Teshie.

5.5 The said Ashong Mlitse family of the Odaitei Tse We of Teshie, Accra, represented by Samuel Afotey Tetteh, further asserted that they had obtained a judgment of the Court of Appeal dated the 26th day of April, 1987, which according to them, declared the Ashong Mlitse family of the Odaitei Tse WE of Teshie, Accra, as the rightful owners of the land that is the subject-matter of this dispute.

5.6 According to the Plaintiff initially, she was reluctant to repurchase the land from them. However, following a series of persistent acts of harassment and interference by Samuel Afotey Tetteh and members of his family, she was eventually compelled, albeit under protest, to make a further payment to the Ashong Mlitse family of the Odaitei Tse We of Teshie, Accra, in order to regularise her interest in the land and secure quiet enjoyment thereof.

5.7 Subsequent to the payment made to the Ashong Mlitse family of the Odaitei Tse We of Teshie, Accra, the said family proceeded to prepare and execute in her favour, another indenture in respect of the same parcel of land, granting her leasehold interest for a term of ninety-nine (99) years, commencing from the 20th day of October, 2014.

See Exhibit “B” series, copies of the Indenture executed in her favour, together with the Receipt evidencing payment of the purchase price for the land.

5.8 Plaintiff further testified that approximately a year and a half prior to the institution of this action, many of her neighbours were confronted by a group of individuals, acting on behalf of the Nii Akwra Boye-Doku family of Teshie and reportedly supported by some police officers. They claimed that the Nii Akwra Boye-Doku family had obtained a judgment delivered by the High Court, Accra, which, according to them, declared the said family’s ownership over all lands in the Adjiringanor (Otano) area, including the land in her possession. See Exhibit “C”, a copy of the said judgment.

5.9 It is her testimony that although in the judgment referred to above, the learned trial judge recognized possessory interests in favour of certain individual landowners, including her nonetheless she took steps to further regularise her interest in the said land with the Nii Akwra Boye-Doku family. She approached the head of the family, Samuel Adjei Mensah, and formally regularised her interest by atoning tenancy in respect of the land with the said family.

6.0 As part of the process of regularizing her interest in the land with the Nii Akwra Boye-Doku family, she paid the sum of Seven Thousand United States Dollars (USD$7,000.00) to the family through its head, Mr. Samuel Adjei Mensah and was subsequently issued with another indenture by the Nii Akwra Boye-Doku family in respect of the same land.

See Exhibit “D” series, copies of the indenture executed in her favour, together with Receipt evidencing the payment.

6.1 Continuing, the Plaintiff testified that from the date of her initial purchase of the land in 1996, and throughout the period of her possession and control of the subject-matter of this action, she has maintained quiet, peaceful, and undisturbed possession of the land. During this time, she took all steps to openly assert her ownership and control over the land, including, as previously stated, fencing the property, erecting a structure, and placing a caretaker in occupation. Such possession has been without any interruption, interference, or disturbance from any person whatsoever.

6.2 It is the evidence of the Plaintiff that on the 19th day of May, 2025, the Defendants, accompanied by a group of armed individuals and four (4) armed police officers, allegedly dispatched from the headquarters of the Ghana Police Service, Accra unlawfully and forcibly entered her land and immediately commenced rapid construction activities thereon, without first making any enquiry as to the status of her lawful possession.

See Exhibit “E” series, photographs depicting the presence of the police officers and the armed individuals on the premises of the said land.

6.3 The Defendants’ acts of unlawful trespass continue unabated, despite her repeated efforts to halt their takeover of her land, including the initiation of this action.

6.4 And that prior to the initiation of the present suit, she reported the Defendants’ unlawful trespass to the Property Fraud Unit of the Ghana Police Service. The investigator in charge of the matter subsequently instructed the parties not to carry out any work on the land until investigations into the ownership of the property were concluded.

6.5 Despite the police admonishing the Defendants to desist from further development of the land, the 1st Defendant, shortly after leaving the premises of the Property Fraud Unit of the Ghana Police Service, instructed his workers to continue their acts of trespass on the Plaintiff’s property. They proceeded to work day and night with undue haste, under the protection of the land guards and armed police officers.

6.6 And that even after this Honourable Court granted an order for an interlocutory injunction, and the same was duly served on the Defendants, they have in blatant disregard of the order and the authority of this Honourable Court, persisted in actively and rapidly developing the land, working both day and night. See Exhibit “F” series, pictures of her property before and after the acts of trespass by the Defendants. Hence she instituted the instant action against the Defendants.

6.7 There is evidence before the court that a look at the title documents tendered by the Plaintiff clearly depicts that she is the owner of the subject-matter land. Aside this she also adduced further evidence to show that she has been in effective possession of the subject-matter land since her acquisition of same.

6.8 In the circumstance, I accordingly enter judgment for the Plaintiff per the reliefs endorsed on her writ of summons. I award Plaintiff GhS50,000.00 damages for trespass. Cost of GhS15,000.00 against the Defendants.