Skip to content

Advertise Here

Addai-Nimo Floors Chief, Queen Mother In Court

Less than 1 minute Minutes

FORMER MEMBER of Parliament (MP) for Mampong, Hon. Francis Addai Nimo, has been awarded a cost of GHC10,000 against Nana Oppong Adade IV and Nana Abena Fremponpmaa II, chief and Queen mother respectively of Bobin by a Mampong High Court.

In December 2018, the plaintiffs sued the former lawmaker together with Madam Afia Buor of Bobin over the ownership of a 30 acre parcel of land at Esereso.

Click on the image to chat now!

Nana Adade and Nana Frempomaa per their statement of claim were claiming recovering of possession of the land in dispute, general and special damages, an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from further causing damages to the said land as well as cost.

They alleged that the disputed land forms part of their Stool land which also serve as farmlands for queenmothers.

The plaintiffs further claimed that when the second plaintiff was enstooled Queenmother in 2015 the said land was entrusted to her as custom demands for farming.

However, Hon. Addai Nimo, the first defendant in his statement of defence filed by his counsel, Hagar Addo, Esq. countered the claims by the plaintiff and stated that the land in dispute forms part of Mampong Stool land which was acquired by one Yaw Bediako, the grand father of the second defendant.

He stated that it also formed part of 63 acre land acquired from the second defendant in 2006 having inherited it from her uncle.

The defendant contended that the plaintiffs trespassed and encroached on his legally acquired land.

Having analysed evidence deduced by the parties, the Mampong High Court Presided over by His Lordship Justice George Appiah Kwabeng, on December 16, 2022 dismissed the plaintiffs’ action as unmeritorius.

The court which had taken into account whether the disputed land forms part of the Bobin Amoawise stool lands and whether the first defendant destroyed crops on the land as alleged by the plaintiffs, indicated that the plaintiffs had not proven their title to the land in dispute to the standard required by law and therefore not entitled to the reliefs sought.

“Their root to title and mode of acquisition could not be conclusively proved on the balance of probabilities”, the court explained why the plaintiffs action against the defendants failed.

BY Kow Richardson 


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertise Here

Other Stories