OFOSU AND ANOTHER VRS. LARBI AND ANOTHER (C1/03/2023) [2025] GHAHC 69 (6 May 2025)

OFOSU AND ANOTHER VRS. LARBI AND ANOTHER (C1/03/2023) [2025] GHAHC 69 (6 May 2025)

The plaintiffs established, on a balance of probabilities, that the disputed land forms part of their inheritance, demarcated by long-standing boundaries and Ntome trees. The defendants, as later acquirers, encroached by constructing a wall and manhole beyond their boundary, as confirmed by the composite plan and expert evidence. Plaintiffs’ evidence, though inconsistent on acreage, was supported by ancient documents and physical features, while defendants failed to prove exclusive entitlement or proper demarcation. The manhole constitutes a nuisance and trespass. Plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of title, injunction, and demolition order; defendants’ counterclaim fails.

Citation
[2025] GHAHC 69
Parties
Plaintiff: Maxwell Adufah Ofosu @ Maxwell Ofosu; Plaintiff: Solomon Kwame Adufah; Defendant: Augustine Maxwell Larbi; Defendant: Richard Kwaku Asiedu
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
6 May 2025
Case Number
C1/03/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Land Dispute / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for plaintiffs; defendants’ counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title, Injunction, Trespass, Boundary Dispute, Customary Sale, Site Plan Requirements, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Land Law Customary Law Civil Procedure Declaration of Title Injunction Trespass Boundary Dispute Customary Sale +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maxwell Adufah Ofosu @ Maxwell Ofosu

Plaintiff

Solomon Kwame Adufah

Plaintiff

Augustine Maxwell Larbi

Defendant

Richard Kwaku Asiedu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Land Dispute / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reserved 4 feet land to be used as road by Mr. Attipoe to access his poultry farm falls within the 1st defendant’s land
  2. 2 Whether the manhole constructed by the 1st defendant falls within the 4 feet reserved land
  3. 3 Whether the subject matter land before this Honourable Court falls within the 1st defendant’s acquired land

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs established, on a balance of probabilities, that the disputed land forms part of their inheritance, demarcated by long-standing boundaries and Ntome trees. The defendants, as later acquirers, encroached by constructing a wall and manhole beyond their boundary, as confirmed by the composite plan and expert evidence. Plaintiffs’ evidence, though inconsistent on acreage, was supported by ancient documents and physical features, while defendants failed to prove exclusive entitlement or proper demarcation. The manhole constitutes a nuisance and trespass. Plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of title, injunction, and demolition order; defendants’ counterclaim fails.

Court Disposition

judgment for plaintiffs; defendants’ counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration of title and ownership to plaintiffs for the land described in the statement of claim
  • Perpetual injunction restraining defendants and their assigns from interfering with the said land