HENRY NIMAKO-BREMPONG vs. JOYCE B. AKADZA & ANOR [2003]DLCA6489

Date	2003-01-30
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: 8/2002
Citation No.	[2003]DLCA6489

ANSAH JA. (PRESIDING)

ANINAKWAH JA.

TWENEBOAH-KODUAH JA

C. K. HOEYI FOR THE APPELLANT

GEORGE KWABENG FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2003]DLCA6489
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >HENRY NIMAKO-BREMPONG<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>JOYCE B. AKADZA &amp;
ANOR<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
APPEAL NO.: 8/2002&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 30TH JANUARY, 2003<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">C. K. HOEYI FOR THE
APPELLANT <o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">GEORGE KWABENG FOR THE
RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>ANSAH
JA. (PRESIDING), ANINAKWAH JA., TWENEBOAH-KODUAH JA<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>ANSAH, J.A.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The plaintiff endorsed his writ with claims
for: <o:p></o:p>1)
"An order that the part of the perimeter wall around 1st Defendant's house
at Nungua-Buade in Accra straddles or is built on the space demarcated as part
(western) part of the access road lying and being between the first defendant's
said house and that move freely to and from his (plaintiff's) said house. <o:p></o:p>2)
General damages". <o:p></o:p>The
parties are adjoining landowners and the case for the plaintiff was that the
space between their houses was demarcated for an access road by the
authorities. The first defendant built and extended her fence wall onto the
access road so much that it was only about a meter away from the house of the
plaintiff. As a result vehicular movement to and from the plaintiffs' house
through the access road became impossible. The plaintiff said he made a report
to the 2nd defendant who confirmed that the first defendant wrongfully erected
her wall at where she did and marked it for removal. The first defendant did
not remove her wall and the second defendant did not compel her to comply with
the order to remove it either. The plaintiff complained that action of the
first defendant was a cause of nuisance, embarrassment, inconvenience and costs
to him. For a redress, he put in the claims mentioned above.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The defendants resisted the plaintiffs claims.
The first claimed that when she started her building operation in 1989, the
layout plan of the area did not indicate that any access road passed through
her land. She went on to have a quit and peaceable enjoyment and possession of
her land till 1997 when she noticed that the plaintiff had also started his
building operation on an adjoining piece of land. Where she had her building
was not part of any access road. <o:p></o:p>At
the summons for directions, the issues agreed upon for trial were simply “1.
Whether or not an access road has been demarcated as lying between plaintiff’s
and 1st defendant’s respective houses at Buade” and “2. Whether or not the 1st
defendant has in any way built on an access road or part thereof”. <o:p></o:p>The
learned trial judge took evidence from the parties and in his judgment upheld
the plaintiff’s claim. He ordered that the first defendant should remove her
wall or the plaintiff should do so in order that both parties uses the access
road, to get to their respective houses. <o:p></o:p>Dissatisfied
with the decision, the first defendant brought an appeal against it before this
court. I shall now call the plaintiff the respondent and the first defendant,
the appellant. Originally only one ground of appeal was filed. It was the
omnibus ground that the judgment was against the weight of evidence. The
additional grounds were that:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1) The trial judge erred in law by not
dismissing the plaintiff’s writ of summons as being inappropriate by virtue of
the nature of the reliefs claimed and the evidence adduced. <o:p></o:p>2)
The trial judge erred in law by not applying to the plaintiff the law on the
acquisition of Building Permit, particularly, Regulations 3 and 7 of the
National Building Regulations, 1996, (LI 1630.) <o:p></o:p>3)
The trial judge misdirected himself by entering judgment for the
plaintiff/respondent when the plaintiff/respondent had not asserted his title
to the plot of land on which he built his house for which he wanted an access
road through the 1st defendant's land.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(4) The trial judge failed to make proper
findings of fact because he adopted a wrong procedure at the locus in quo
inspection".<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The appellant submitted that the joinder of
AMA as a second defendant was wrong for the reason that if the aim was to
compel it to demolish the first de defendant's wall, then his remedy was to
apply to the High Court for an order of</main>