More than 15 households in New Dawenya, near Tema Community 25, were displaced on Wednesday after court bailiffs, accompanied by police officers, enforced a judgment in a protracted land ownership dispute.
Residents say they were ordered to vacate their homes to allow possession of the land to be handed over to a party that had secured a favourable court ruling.
Speaking on Joy FM’s Super Morning Show, one affected resident said families awoke to the presence of armed police officers and court officials executing the order.
According to her, the officials informed residents that they were acting on a court directive requiring occupants to leave the properties and remove their belongings so the successful claimant could take possession of the land.
The resident linked the eviction to a longstanding legal battle over ownership of land in the Dawenya area, a dispute that has seen competing claims and court rulings over several years.
She explained that her family purchased the land after conducting checks on ownership documents at a time when one of the contesting families had won a court case. Despite this, they now find themselves affected by a dispute that predates their acquisition of the property.
Her family has lived on the land for about 14 years.
“We are currently outside our home with our belongings,” she said, adding that the sudden eviction disrupted normal activities, including children’s attendance at school.
Several families, she noted, were left scrambling for temporary accommodation after receiving little warning about the exercise.
The resident also claimed affected homeowners were never given the option of negotiating with or repurchasing the land from the successful claimant.
She alleged that the claimant’s primary objective had always been to recover the land and clear existing developments, although she acknowledged she could not independently verify reports that the land may be earmarked for a future medical facility.
Many of the affected structures, she said, are completed homes occupied by families, while others are rental properties. Some landowners had reportedly abandoned construction projects because of the uncertainty created by the litigation.
Although police officers were present during the operation, she said the exercise was carried out without force.
The resident further revealed that an earlier attempt to secure a demolition order was challenged in court. While ownership of the land was eventually upheld in favour of the claimant, she said the Court of Appeal did not grant permission for the demolition of existing structures.
With dozens of residents now displaced, uncertainty remains over their next steps.
“We don’t know where to go from here,” she said.
She appealed to the successful claimant to engage residents in dialogue and consider a negotiated settlement, including the possibility of allowing occupants to repurchase the land.
For now, affected families are focused on finding shelter and securing a safe place for their belongings as they weigh their legal and practical options.
