ASANTE VRS AFRAH (BR/KK/DC/A1/09/2024) [2024] GHADC 462 (22 May 2024)

ASANTE VRS AFRAH (BR/KK/DC/A1/09/2024) [2024] GHADC 462 (22 May 2024)

Plaintiff failed to prove with requisite certainty the boundary features separating his land from the defendant’s, as required for a declaration of title and injunction. The Onyina tree, accepted as the boundary, was cut down by the plaintiff, and the defendant’s occupation of her aunt’s land does not constitute trespass. Plaintiff’s claim fails for lack of proof on the preponderance of probabilities.

Citation
ASANTE VRS AFRAH (BR/KK/DC/A1/09/2024) [2024] GHADC 462 (22 May 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff: Prince Asante; Defendant: Yaa Afrah
Court
ghadc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
22 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title, Recovery of Possession, Perpetual Injunction, Boundary Dispute, Burden of Proof
Source Language
eng
Land Law Civil Procedure Declaration of Title Recovery of Possession Perpetual Injunction Boundary Dispute 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prince Asante

Plaintiff

Yaa Afrah

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties' mothers were adjoining land owners
  2. 2 Whether the Onyina tree served as a boundary feature between the parties' lands
  3. 3 Whether the defendant trespassed onto the plaintiff’s farm land to harvest cocoa

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove with requisite certainty the boundary features separating his land from the defendant’s, as required for a declaration of title and injunction. The Onyina tree, accepted as the boundary, was cut down by the plaintiff, and the defendant’s occupation of her aunt’s land does not constitute trespass. Plaintiff’s claim fails for lack of proof on the preponderance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Orders

  • Parties to locate their common boundary at the place where the Onyina and Moama trees were boundary features
  • Agreed tree species to be planted by the parties to serve as boundary features