ANTONELLO PETENEL vs UNIQUE ESTATES CO LTD AND OKESON EMMANUEL [2017]DLHC16366

Date	2017-05-29
Suit No.	SUIT NO: LD/1096/16
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC16366

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE ANTHONY OPPONG

RAPAEL ALIJINA

[2017]DLHC16366
																																						<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" ><a name="_Hlk146980440"></a><a name="_Hlk146981432">&nbsp;</a>ANTONELLO
PETENEL<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>UNIQUE
ESTATES CO LTD AND OKESON EMMANUEL<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
color:#4F81BD;mso-themecolor:accent1;mso-style-textoutline-type:solid;
mso-style-textoutline-fill-color:#00B0F0;mso-style-textoutline-fill-alpha:100.0%;
mso-style-textoutline-outlinestyle-dpiwidth:.75pt;mso-style-textoutline-outlinestyle-linecap:
flat;mso-style-textoutline-outlinestyle-join:round;mso-style-textoutline-outlinestyle-pctmiterlimit:
0%;mso-style-textoutline-outlinestyle-dash:solid;mso-style-textoutline-outlinestyle-align:
center;mso-style-textoutline-outlinestyle-compound:simple;mso-effects-shadow-color:
#6E747A;mso-effects-shadow-alpha:43.0%;mso-effects-shadow-dpiradius:3.0pt;
mso-effects-shadow-dpidistance:2.0pt;mso-effects-shadow-angledirection:5400000;
mso-effects-shadow-align:center;mso-effects-shadow-pctsx:100.0%;mso-effects-shadow-pctsy:
100.0%;mso-effects-shadow-anglekx:0;mso-effects-shadow-angleky:0;mso-bidi-font-weight:
bold"><o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT NO:
LD/1096/16&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: 29TH MAY 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM <o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE ANTHONY OPPONG<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;On or about 21st December,
2016, the Plaintiff, upon an application on notice, obtained interlocutory
default of defence. Since Plaintiff sought declaration of title he could obtain
final judgment only after proving his case as to his title. For that reason,
the case was adjourned to offer
Plaintiff the opportunity of proving
his title. The entry of the Interlocutory judgment together with hearing notice served on the
Defendants albeit by substituted service. The service of these processes on Defendants notwithstanding, they failed to attend Court today scheduled
for Plaintiff to adduce
evidence in prove of his title and assessment of damages.<o:p></o:p>Having been served and yet
being abstract, the Court was constrained to proceed to hear Plaintiff. Plaintiff has accordingly
adduced evidence to the effect that he had his late wife acquired the disputed
land from Nii Akotey IV, Dzasetse and Acting Bortianor Stool in 2005 as per
Exhibit “A”. Plaintiff testified further that he took possession and in 2006 he developed
fence wall around the land to protect
the land. He also out up a single room where in a care taker was put. Plaintiff
testified further that the developed
a six bed room footing
or foundation. Then