Nyarko and Another Vrs Oppong and 2 Others [2022] GHACC 191 (31 October 2022)

Nyarko and Another Vrs Oppong and 2 Others [2022] GHACC 191 (31 October 2022)

Plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of the entire Plot No. 13 Block R, Tarkwa Maakro, but proved ownership and occupation of a portion (one office structure) as bequeathed under a will. Demolition of Plaintiffs’ property on their portion was not sanctioned by KMA and was instigated by 1st Defendant out of malice. Plaintiffs entitled to injunction and damages for trespass.

Citation
[2022] GHACC 191
Parties
Plaintiff: Abena Nyarko; Plaintiff: Elizabeth Acquah; Defendant: Albert Oppong; Defendant: Mr. Eshun; Defendant: Mr. Felix Abeka Quansah
Court
Circuit Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
31 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
partly allowed
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title, Trespass, Injunction, Damages, Demolition of Property
Source Language
English
Property Law Tort Law Declaration of Title Trespass Injunction Damages Demolition of Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abena Nyarko

Plaintiff

Elizabeth Acquah

Plaintiff

Albert Oppong

Defendant

Mr. Eshun

Defendant

Mr. Felix Abeka Quansah

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of title to Plot No. 13 Block R, Tarkwa Maakro
  2. 2 Whether the demolition of Plaintiffs’ structures was lawful
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants were acting in official capacity during the demolition

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of the entire Plot No. 13 Block R, Tarkwa Maakro, but proved ownership and occupation of a portion (one office structure) as bequeathed under a will. Demolition of Plaintiffs’ property on their portion was not sanctioned by KMA and was instigated by 1st Defendant out of malice. Plaintiffs entitled to injunction and damages for trespass.

Court Disposition

partly allowed

Orders

  • Perpetual injunction restraining Defendants from interfering with Plaintiffs’ land and from undertaking any construction or activity.
  • General damages of GH¢ 50,000.00 against Defendants.