1  
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRIMES COURT I, ACCRA, HELD ON THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016, BEFORE HER LADYSHIP GEORGINA MENSAH-DATSA, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT.              SUIT NO: SOL 6/15  
GLADYS ABA QUARCOO                            -        PLAINTIFF 
VRS. 
1. KOFI BATSA 2. CAPT. BUCKMAN 3. E. K. FREMPONG     -        DEFENDANTS     4. AKUA AFRIYIE 5. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,      LAND COMMISSION             
J U D G M E N T  
The Plaintiff claims against the Defendants the following reliefs: 
1. An order of the court directed at the 5th Defendant to expunge and delete all and any records of title entered on the land subject matter of this suit in favour of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants; 
2. An order of the court for the recovery of possession; 
3. A declaration that the Plaintiff is the true and lawful owner of the land; 
4. Perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendants, their assigns, privies, workmen and others from interfering with the subject matter of dispute; 
5. An award of damages for trespass; 
2  
6. Further or other relief. 
Although the defendants were served, they never made an appearance in court. On the 21st December, 2015, the plaintiff’s motion ex-parte for judgment in default of appearance was granted and evidence was led in support of her reliefs sought.  
Exhibit A is a Power of Attorney authorizing Ibrahim Akuffo to act on behalf of the plaintiff herein and he gave evidence in court for her. He testified that the plaintiff herein is his mother and said the land in issue is at Dzorwulu. He contended that the land belonged to his mother’s mother (his grandmother) the late Christiana Amartekai Amartey and she gave it to the plaintiff herein. He stated that the plaintiff, took the Letters of Administration upon the death of her mother, Christiana Amartekai Amartey and tendered it as exhibit B. Exhibit B is the Letters of Administration granted to Gladys Aba Quarco (plaintiff herein) for the estate of Christiana Amartey. According to him, after the plaintiff obtained the Letters of Administration, she prepared a Statutory Declaration, exhibit C, confirming the ownership of parcel of Land and its unsold state. He stated that when the plaintiff went to register the land at the Lands Commission, she was informed that the 1st to 4th defendants’ names had been put on the land. He tendered in evidence, exhibit D, a letter from the Lands Commission dated 28th March, 2014 which advised the plaintiff herein to seek an order of the Court to have the transactions listed therein deleted. 
The plaintiff’s evidence as per her lawful attorney is unchallenged. An evaluation of the evidence adduced indicates that the plaintiff has discharged the burden of proof on her as required by Section 11(1) and (4) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323). Judgment is therefore entered for the plaintiff against the defendants herein for all the reliefs sought.  
The plaintiff claimed damages for trespass. Declaration of title and recovery of possession to the land in issue have been granted to the plaintiff herein. The evidence led shows that the 1st to 4th defendant’s herein have documents indicating their ownership of the said land. From the evidence adduced I find as a fact that the 1st to 4th defendants have trespassed onto the plaintiff’s land. Having so found the plaintiff is entitled to damages. It is trite knowledge that damages flow from the breach of contract or tort.  
3  
In Attorney-General v. Faroe Atlantic Co. Ltd [2005-2006] SCGLR 271 at 290, the Supreme Court, per Dr. Seth Twum JSC stated: 
  “….a claim for damages for breach of contract will entitle the plaintiff to nominal damages only unless the plaintiff gives particulars of special damage. No particulars of general damages are ever ordered…General damages are such as the law will presume to be natural or probable consequence of the defendant’s act. They arise by inference of the law and need not therefore be proved by evidence.  
As the Supreme Court per Twum JSC held in Delmas Agency Ghana Ltd. Vrs. Food Distributors International Ltd. [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 748, holding (3): 
 “General damages is such as the law will presume to be the natural or     probable consequences of the defendant’s act. It arises by inference of law and therefore need not to proved by evidence. The law implies general damage in every infringement of an absolute right. The catch is that only nominal damages are awarded. Where the plaintiff has suffered a properly quantifiable loss, he must plead specifically his loss and prove it strictly. If he does not, he is not entitled to anything unless general damages as are also appropriate.”     
Although the plaintiff herein claimed for damages no evidence was led by her lawful attorney with respect to that. I have evaluated the totality of the evidence led, the facts and circumstances of this case and consider GH¢20,000.00 to be adequate as damages and I award same to the plaintiff herein against the 1st to 4th defendants herein.  
I have considered the factors stated in Order 74 rule 2(3) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) as amended by C.I.87 and the facts and circumstances of this case and award costs of GH¢10,000.00  to the plaintiff  against the 1st and 4th defendants herein.  
          
4   
                                                       (SGD) 
GEORGINA MENSAH-DATSA 
 (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)      
Counsel:                                                                                   
1. Mr. Bram-Larbi for Plaintiff. 
2. No representation for Defendants.   
  