<p>VAN LARE J.S.C.: The sole point for decision in this matter is whether or not the defendant was a squatter because he was said to have trespassed upon an area allegedly in the occupation of the second plaintiff. The claim reads as follows:</p><p><em>“The plaintiff’s claim from the defendant is to show cause why defendant as a squatter and trespasser should not be removed or evicted from the land of the plaintiffs which second plaintiff held same as an abusa tenant.”</em></p><p>That the defendant had trespassed on the second plaintiff’s portion of the land had not been established, and the first plaintiff had not himself been to the area in dispute between the second plaintiff and the defendant, and he had not yet decided the terms of tenancy of either the second plaintiff or the defendant. In the circumstances there is little wonder that the trial Native Court “A” at Asamankese resolved the issue in favour of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff’s action. The necessary part of their judgment is as foll…</p>