Mohammed Vrs Abukari [2023] GHADC 463 (12 January 2023)

Mohammed Vrs Abukari [2023] GHADC 463 (12 January 2023)

The court found that Kalariga Residential Area and Kalariga Resettlement Residential Area are distinct schemes and that the plaintiff’s allocation was for plot no. 112, Kalariga Residential Area, Extension Block A, while the defendant’s allocation was for plot no. 112, Kalariga Resettlement Residential Area. Plaintiff proved his root of title, mode of acquisition, and acts of possession. Defendant’s allocation and subsequent actions related to a different plot. Plaintiff’s title was valid, and defendant’s entry constituted trespass. Plaintiff was entitled to declaration, injunction, possession, damages, and costs.

Citation
[2023] GHADC 463
Parties
Plaintiff: Alhassan Mohammed; Defendant: Abdul Rahaman Abukari
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
12 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Land Dispute / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant’s counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Trespass, Injunction, Damages, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Title to Land Trespass Injunction Damages Burden of Proof

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 6 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alhassan Mohammed

Plaintiff

Abdul Rahaman Abukari

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Land Dispute / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Zoodohi-Naa or Kalariga-Naa is the original owner of the land zoned and called Kalariga Residential Area or Kalariga Resettlement Residential Area scheme
  2. 2 Whether the Kalariga Residential Area or Kalariga Resettlement Residential Area are two distinct and separate schemes
  3. 3 Whether plot no. 112 Kalariga Residential Area, Block A Ext. and plot no. 112 Kalariga Resettlement Residential Area are the same land

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Kalariga Residential Area and Kalariga Resettlement Residential Area are distinct schemes and that the plaintiff’s allocation was for plot no. 112, Kalariga Residential Area, Extension Block A, while the defendant’s allocation was for plot no. 112, Kalariga Resettlement Residential Area. Plaintiff proved his root of title, mode of acquisition, and acts of possession. Defendant’s allocation and subsequent actions related to a different plot. Plaintiff’s title was valid, and defendant’s entry constituted trespass. Plaintiff was entitled to declaration, injunction, possession, damages, and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant’s counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration of title in favour of plaintiff for plot no. 112, Kalariga Residential Area, Extension Block A, Tamale
  • Order to Lands Commission, Tamale to correct its records to reflect plaintiff’s valid allocation