Dr. Agbodah Kobina v Michael Baafi Boateng and Victoria Ahiagbenyoh
by Justice Jennifer Annemeyers Ahmed (Mrs)
Jurisdiction
High Court of Ghana
Judge
Justice Jennifer Annemeyers Ahmed (Mrs)
Catalog Type
Case
Judgement Date
Feb 20, 2025
Summary
The plaintiff brought an action for declaration of title, recovery of possession, injunction, and damages for trespass in respect of land at Monrovia, Koforidua. He claimed to have purchased the land in 2013 from one Ama Adutwumwaa after conducting due diligence, and was issued with a receipt and site plan. The plaintiff led evidence that after acquiring the land, he took possession by placing a caretaker on the land, cultivating crops, and constructing a dwarf wall on three sides of the property. These acts were done without interference. In 2023, during attempts to register the land, he discovered that the land had been “noted” in favour of the defendants. Upon confronting the 1st defendant, the latter denied any interest in the land and failed to produce any documentation. The 2nd defendant also failed to appear or defend the action despite being served. The court held that notwithstanding the absence of the defendants, the plaintiff was required to prove his case on a balance of probabilities. The court found that the plaintiff had established his title through documentary evidence and acts of possession. The court further noted that the 1st defendant expressly denied any interest in the land, and the 2nd defendant failed to defend the action. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the plaintiff’s case was unchallenged. Accordingly, the court entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff, granting all reliefs including declaration of title, recovery of possession, perpetual injunction, damages for trespass, and costs of GH₵30,000.00.
Full Content
By a writ issued on the 5th of June 2023 the plaintiff claimed jointly and severally the following reliefs from the defendants:
1. Declaration of title to plot number 108, sector 13A, Block ‘D’, Monrovia-Koforidua.
2. Recovery of Possession.
3. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, assigns, grantees and all who claim through them from entering the land the subject of dispute.
4. Damages for trespass.
5. Any other order(s) the Honourable Court may deem fit.
The plaintiff in his accompanying statement of claim averred that he is a lecturer at the Koforidua Technical University whilst the 1st defendant claims to be an officer of the National Bureau of Investigations. The 2nd defendant was not known to the plaintiff but she claimed to be the grantor of the 1st defendant who had been laying claim to a parcel of land acquired by the plaintiff in the year 2013.
The 1st defendant entered conditional appearance on the 13th of June 2023 and also filed a statement of defence the same day, denying the plaintiff’s claims, averring that he did not know the plaintiff and that he was an assemblyman for Asokore in the New Juabeng North Municipality as well as a staff of E-MAG Investment. He had never worked with the National Bureau of Investigations and the 2nd defendant was unknown to him.
The 2nd defendant to date has not entered appearance, filed any defence or even appeared physically before the court. All processes have been served to her via substituted service but it has all been futile. The plaintiff thus applied for and was granted a judgment in default of defence against her on the 7th of December 2023. The 1st defendant after filing his statement of defence chose not to participate any further in the suit. Thus despite the service of hearing notices as well as the plaintiff’s witness statement on him through substituted service, he also chose not to participate any further in this suit.
The plaintiff on the 14th of December 2023 filed his application for directions and set down issues for determination which were subsequently adopted by the court on the 11th of March 2024. The issues were;
1. Whether or not the plaintiff has a valid grant of the land in dispute.
2. Whether or not the plaintiff has executed overt acts of ownership over the land in dispute since 2013.
3. Whether or not the 1st defendant has trespassed on the land.
4. Any other issue(s) arising out of the pleadings.
The 1st defendant as previously stated, entered appearance and filed a statement of defence but then failed to turn up in court again or file any other process before the court, despite the issuance and service of hearing notices on him. Initially he was served personally with some of the processes but then the plaintiff later had to apply to the court so both he and the 2nd defendant could be served with processes via substituted service. The trial essentially proceeded without the participation of the defendants. In spite of this, the court has to determine whether the plaintiff has been able to establish his claims before this court on the balance of probabilities. In a claim for title to land, the general principle is that it is the duty of a claimant to establish his case. In Dowuona II v Olewolon[2006] 7 MLRG 154 the Supreme Court at page 168 stated that:
‘It is trite learning, plaintiff seeking title, the onus rests upon him to prove his case.’
In the same vein the plaintiff herein has a duty to prove his case. What evidence then did he adduce in support of his case?
The plaintiff who is a lecturer at the Koforidua Technical University testified that he purchased the land in dispute in 2013 from one Ama Adutwumwaa after doing his due diligence. He met with her and negotiated on the purchase price with her and she in turn issued him with a receipt and a site plan. Copies of these were tendered into evidence as exhibits A and A1. The land is located at plot 108, block D,
Monrovia Koforidua, behind a place he named as ‘the Bedtime’. The land is bounded by a railway line, a road and another plot of land.
After acquiring the land, the plaintiff stated that he put it in the care of one Daniel Owusu who happened to be the son of his grantor while he undertook a PHD program. His caretaker in his absence cultivated crops on the land and constructed per his instructions, a dwarf wall on three sides of the land, all without protest from any quarter.
It was in the year 2023, when he undertook to register the land at the Lands Commission that he was informed that the land ‘had been noted for the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant was his grantor.’ Armed with this information, he made several efforts to meet with the defendants. The 1st defendant when they met, was unable to show him any documentation at all to prove his claim to the land. The 1st defendant did however tell him that he had obtained a lease of the land from the 2nd defendant. He also questioned his grantor and she in turn stated that the defendants were unknown to her and she had not sold the land in dispute to them
All attempts by him to meet with the 2nd defendant to verify her claim to the land were rebuffed by her. The 1st defendant was also according to the plaintiff, using his position as a national security operative to harass his caretaker on the land. He thus filed the instant suit to put a stop to the trespassory acts of the defendants who would persist with their adverse claims unless compelled by the court not to do so.
As has been stated earlier, the defendants chose not to participate in the trial or to challenge the plaintiff in any way on his claims. Strengthening the plaintiff’s case is the document filed by the 1st defendant on the 13th of June 2023 after entering conditional appearance which he titled as ‘Response By 1st Defendant to Writ of Summons ’. In this response which is a statement of defence strictly speaking, the
1st defendant averred that he is an assemblyman of Asokore in the New Juaben North Municipality and also a staff of E-MAG Investment. He denied knowing the plaintiff or being an operative of the National Bureau and denied knowing the 2nd defendant. He also averred that he had not ‘dealt with any person(s) on any land located at Monrovia, Koforidua behind Bedtime Hotel or its environs or in the Eastern Region at large’ and had not claimed or obtained any lease of the land or trespassed on it. He also believed he had been erroneously served with the writ of summons.
With the 1st defendant denying any interest in the land in dispute and with the 2nd defendant refusing to defend the action, I will grant the plaintiff the reliefs he claims before the court. They have been afforded all the opportunity to defend this action which they have spurned.
Thus judgment is granted in the plaintiff’s favour for all the reliefs as endorsed on his writ of summons. Cost of Gh¢30,000.00 is awarded in the plaintiff’s favour.