Land disputes are common in Ghana. But every now and then, a case comes along that clarifies something deeper about how our land system works.
That is what happened in Amoakwa v Boaley & Others [2026] GHACA 1, decided on 21 January 2026 by the Court of Appeal of Ghana.
The case answers a simple but important question: If a family owns land under customary law, can it remove traders from a strip of that land when the Metropolitan Assembly treats it as a road reservation?
The Court’s answer was no.
The Dispute
The Plaintiff, a family head from Abura in Cape Coast, sued a group of traders who had placed metal containers and temporary structures on a strip of land near the Abura Roman Catholic School and the Cape Coast–Jukwa road.
He claimed the land formed part of his family’s property. According to him, the traders’ activities caused congestion and interfered with teaching at the school. He asked the court to:
Declare the land as family land
Order the removal of the structures
Restrain the traders permanently
Award damages for trespass
The traders did not focus on disputing the family’s historical ownership. Instead, they argued that the land was a road reservation under the control of the Cape Coast Metropolitan Assembly and that they were operating there with the Assembly’s permission.
What Is a Road Reservation?
A road reservation is land that government sets aside for present or future road use. It may not yet be part of the tarred road, but it is legally designated for that purpose.
In this case:
The Assembly’s Physical Planning officer testified.
An approved layout plan was produced.
The strip was shown as a buffer zone for the Abura–Jukwa road.
The area also carried a major public water pipeline.
The Assembly said it only allowed temporary structures there, and traders paid licence fees.
The High Court’s Decision
The High Court accepted that the family held allodial title to Abura lands, including the disputed area. Allodial title is the highest interest in land under Ghanaian law.
Yet the Court dismissed the action.
The judge reasoned that while the family may have historically owned the land, the strip had been treated and managed as part of a road reservation. Once land is set aside and regulated for public planning purposes, it cannot be treated like ordinary family land in a private trespass action.
In short, historical ownership did not automatically translate into a present right to eject traders operating under municipal authority.
The family appealed.
The Key Issue on Appeal
Before the Court of Appeal of Ghana, the central argument was this:
If the family’s allodial title was admitted, shouldn’t the government prove compulsory acquisition by producing an Executive Instrument and evidence of compensation?
The Court of Appeal drew an important distinction.
This case was not a constitutional challenge against the State. It was a private dispute between a family and traders. The Attorney-General and Lands Commission were not parties. The action did not seek to invalidate a compulsory acquisition.
Instead, the question was whether the Plaintiff had shown a better present right to possession than the traders.
Planning Control and the Presumption of Regularity
The Court held that credible planning evidence showing that the land was designated as a road reservation was sufficient in this context. It relied on two important principles:
Courts presume that official acts have been regularly performed unless proven otherwise.
A party alleging that public authorities acted unlawfully must produce evidence to rebut that presumption.
The Plaintiff did not produce evidence showing that the road reservation designation was invalid or unlawful. Nor did he join the relevant state authorities to challenge the acquisition process directly.
In those circumstances, the Court was not prepared to treat the strip as ordinary family land.
Why the Nuisance Claim Failed
Part of the Plaintiff’s complaint was that the traders’ activities disturbed the Roman Catholic School. However, no representative from the school testified.
Courts are cautious where a party fails to call a witness who would naturally be expected to support a central allegation. The absence of testimony from the school weakened the nuisance narrative.
The Broader Legal Lesson
This decision does not undermine customary ownership. Rather, it reinforces the practical reality that Allodial title is powerful, but it is not absolute.
Where land has been integrated into public planning systems such as road reservations or infrastructure corridors, private enforcement actions against occupiers operating under municipal authority may fail.
If a family believes land was improperly acquired or that compensation remains unpaid, the appropriate remedy lies in proceedings against the relevant public authority. It does not lie in ejecting private traders through a trespass claim.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court’s decision.
The message from Amoakwa v Boaley is clear. In modern Ghana, land rights operate within a structured planning regime. Customary ownership remains significant, but it must coexist with lawful public regulation.
For landowners, traders and Assemblies alike, the case is a reminder that in urban spaces, the question is not only who owned the land first. It is also how that land has been legally designated, managed and integrated into public use.
