[1999]DLHC336 • June 8, 1999 • High Court
LUTTERODT vs. NYARKO AND ANOTHER
The plaintiff, Lutterodt, claimed damages and injunction for trespass to his land, Plot No. 131 Dansoman, following defendants' occupation and development on the land. The dispute arose after a 1976 Circuit Court judgment in favor of the plaintiff was varied by a Court of Appeal consent judgment based on a site plan (Exhibit Y) which was later found to be inaccurate. The plaintiff sought to set aside the consent judgment on grounds of mutual mistake of fact regarding the land demarcation. The defendants claimed title by gift from a third party but failed to prove valid title. The plaintiff obtained a rectified site plan and a land title certificate confirming his ownership. The defendants were found to be trespassers.
read moreIn 1976 the plaintiff issued a writ in the circuit court against the defendants claiming damages for trespass to his land, plot No 131 Dansoman and an order for perpetual injunction. One Garibah Amissah joined that action as co-defendant. On 18 February 1982 the circuit court gave judgment in that suit No CCL 68/76 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed against the circuit court’s decision. At the Court of Appeal the parties settled the matter out of court and filed terms of settlement varying the circuit court’s judgment. The contents of the terms of settlement is in evidence as exhibit D in the present case and it reads as follows: “(1) That judgment is hereby entered for the plaintiff-respondent in respect of the area edged blue on exhibit Y (plan B) as per the plaintiff-respondent’s document No 1018/77 dated April 1974. (2) That the order of perpetual injunction granted by the said court is to relate to the area edged blue on exhibit Y. (3) That the...