Agbodah v Baafi Boateng and Another (C1/158/2023) [2025] GHAHC 179 (20 February 2025)

INTHESUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, INTHE HIGHCOURT OF JUSTICE KOFORIDUA HELDONTHURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY2025 BEFORE HERLADYSHIPJUSTICE JENNIFERMYERS AHMED(MRS), JUSTICEOF THEHIGH COURT. SUITNO: C1/158/2023 DR. AGBODAH KOBINA VRS 1. MICHAELBAAFI BOATENG ( 2. VICTORIA AHIAGBENYOH JUDGMENT By awrit issued onthe 5thofJune 2023the plaintiffclaimed jointly andseverally thefollowing reliefs fromthe defendants: 1. Declaration of title to plot number 108, sector 13A, Block ‘D’, Monrovia- Koforidua. 2. RecoveryofPossession. 3. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, assigns, grantees and allwho claim throughthemfromentering the land the subject ofdispute. 4. Damagesfor trespass. 5. Anyotherorder(s) the Honourable Courtmay deemfit. The plaintiff inhis accompanying statement ofclaim averredthat he is alecturerat 1 theKoforidua TechnicalUniversity whilst the1stdefendant claims tobe anofficer ofthe National BureauofInvestigations. The 2nd defendant was notknownto the plaintiff but she claimed tobe thegrantorofthe 1stdefendant who had beenlaying claim toa parcelofland acquired by the plaintiff inthe year2013. The 1stdefendant enteredconditional appearance onthe13thofJune 2023and also filed astatement ofdefence the same day,denying the plaintiff’s claims, averring thathe did not knowthe plaintiffand thathe was anassemblyman forAsokorein theNew Juabeng NorthMunicipality aswell asastaff ofE-MAGInvestment. He had neverworkedwith theNational BureauofInvestigations and the 2nd defendant wasunknown tohim. The 2nd defendant todate hasnot entered appearance, filed any defence oreven appearedphysically beforethe court. Allprocesses have beenservedtoher via substitutedservice but it has allbeenfutile. The plaintiff thusapplied for and was granted ajudgment in default ofdefence against her onthe7thofDecember 2023. The 1stdefendant after filing his statementofdefence chose not toparticipate any furtherinthe suit. Thus despite theservice ofhearing notices aswell asthe plaintiff’s witness statementonhim throughsubstituted service, he also chose not toparticipate any furtherin this suit. The plaintiff onthe14th ofDecember 2023filed his applicationfordirections and setdown issues fordetermination which were subsequently adoptedby the court onthe 11th ofMarch2024.The issueswere; 1. Whetherornot theplaintiff has avalid grant ofthe land in dispute. 2. Whether or not the plaintiff has executed overt acts of ownership over the landindispute since 2013. 3. Whetherornot the1stdefendant has trespassed onthe land. 2 4. Anyotherissue(s) arising out ofthepleadings. The 1stdefendant as previously stated, entered appearance and filed astatement ofdefence but thenfailed toturnupin courtagain orfile any otherprocessbefore thecourt, despite the issuance and service ofhearing notices onhim. Initially he wasserved personallywith some oftheprocesses but thenthe plaintiff laterhad toapply tothe courtso bothhe and the 2nddefendant could be served with processesvia substituted service. The trial essentially proceededwithout the participationofthe defendants. Inspite ofthis, thecourt hastodetermine whether theplaintiff has beenable to establish his claims beforethis courtonthe balance ofprobabilities. Inaclaim fortitle toland, thegeneralprinciple is thatit is theduty ofaclaimant to establish hiscase. InDowuona IIv Olewolon[2006]7MLRG154 theSupreme Courtatpage 168stated that: ‘It is trite learning, plaintiffseeking title, the onus rests uponhim to prove hiscase.’ Inthesame vein the plaintiffherein hasaduty toprove his case. What evidence thendid he adduce in support ofhiscase? The plaintiff who is alectureratthe Koforidua Technical University testified thathe purchased theland in dispute in 2013fromoneAma Adutwumwaa after doing his due diligence. Hemet with herand negotiated onthe purchase price withherand she inturnissued him withareceipt and asite plan.Copies ofthese were tendered intoevidence as exhibits A andA1. The land is locatedat plot 108,block D, Monrovia Koforidua, behind aplace he named as‘the Bedtime’.The landis bounded by arailway line, aroadand another plotofland. Afteracquiring the land, the plaintiff statedthat he put it in the careofone Daniel Owusu who happened tobe the sonofhis grantorwhile he undertook aPHD program.His caretaker in his absence cultivated cropsonthe land and constructed perhis instructions, adwarf wallonthreesides oftheland, all 3 withoutprotest fromany quarter. Itwas inthe year2023,when he undertooktoregister the landatthe Lands Commissionthat he was informed thatthe land ‘had been noted for the 1st defendantand the 2nd defendantwas his grantor.’ Armed withthis information, he made severaleffortstomeet withthe defendants. The 1stdefendant when they met, wasunable toshow him anydocumentationat alltoprove his claim tothe land. The 1stdefendant did howevertellhim thathe hadobtained alease ofthe landfromthe2nd defendant. Healso questioned his grantorand she in turnstated thatthe defendants wereunknown toher and she had notsold the land in dispute tothem. Allattemptsbyhim tomeet withthe 2nddefendant toverify herclaim to theland wererebuffed by her. The 1stdefendant was also according tothe plaintiff, using his position asanational security operative toharass his caretaker onthe land. He thus filed the instant suit toput astoptothetrespassoryacts of thedefendants who would persist withtheir adverse claims unless compelled by thecourt nottodo so. Ashasbeen stated earlier, thedefendants chose not toparticipate in thetrial orto challenge the plaintiff in any way onhis claims. Strengthening the plaintiff’s case isthe document filed by the1stdefendant onthe 13th ofJune 2023after entering conditionalappearance which he titled as ‘ResponseBy 1st DefendanttoWrit of Summons’.Inthis response which is astatementofdefence 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 beenerroneously servedwith thewrit ofsummons. 4 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 theplaintiff’sfavour. SGD JENNIFERANNE MYERS AHMED(MRS) JUSTICEOF THEHIGH COURT 5