Here is the rewritten article, structured for SEO, clarity, and educational value, strictly adhering to your formatting and content requirements.

Building Contractor Remanded Over Trespass and Danger of Injury

Date of Report: January 22, 2026
Source: Life Pulse Daily

Introduction

In a significant legal development involving real estate and property rights, an Adentan Circuit Court in Ghana has remanded a development contractor into police custody. The contractor, identified as Carlos Kwabena Allston, faces serious charges including criminal trespass and the threat of causing harm. This case highlights the critical importance of clear property boundaries, the legal weight of property sales contracts, and the consequences of unauthorized entry. As the situation unfolds, it serves as a pertinent case study for property owners, contractors, and legal enthusiasts regarding the enforcement of property rights and the judicial process in real estate disputes.

Key Points

Background

The roots of this legal confrontation trace back to a property transaction executed in 2021. According to the prosecution, led by Chief Inspector Maxwell Lanyo, the complainant, Mr. Wise Roland Horgli, purchased a four-unit apartment block from the accused, Mr. Carlos Kwabena Allston, for a total sum of US$450,000. The full payment was settled at the time of the acquisition.

The Occupancy Dispute

Following the sale, a dispute arose regarding the physical possession of the property. The prosecution noted that the accused, Mr. Allston, was occupying one of the residential units within the apartment block. Mr. Horgli requested that Mr. Allston vacate the premises to facilitate necessary renovation works. However, this request set the stage for future conflict.

Escalation in 2025

The situation intensified in 2025 when the accused reportedly informed the complainant of his intention to return to the property to conduct building works. Mr. Horgli explicitly declined this request, asserting his rights as the property owner. In response, the prosecution alleges that Mr. Allston became dissatisfied and issued threats. He reportedly threatened to forcibly enter the premises, damage existing structures, and erect a new building on the site.

Analysis

This case presents a classic yet complex intersection of property law, contract enforcement, and criminal liability. Understanding the legal mechanics at play is essential for grasping the severity of the charges.

Understanding Criminal Trespass

Criminal trespass is defined as the unauthorized entry onto land or into a building owned or occupied by another person with the intent to commit an offense or to intimidate, insult, or annoy. In this instance, the prosecution alleges that Mr. Allston entered the premises on December 30, 2025, without prior notice or permission.

The legal significance here is the ownership status. Once the sale of the four-unit apartment was completed in 2021—and full payment received—the legal right to possession shifted to the buyer, Mr. Horgli. Even if the seller retains physical keys or access, the law generally recognizes the buyer’s exclusive right to control the property. By ignoring the owner’s warning to stay away, the accused allegedly committed a criminal act.

The Element of “Danger of Injury”

The charge of “danger of injury” or threat of harm adds a more serious dimension to the case. The prosecution claims that Mr. Allston threatened to hurt Mr. Horgli and damage the property. In legal terms, this moves the dispute beyond a simple civil disagreement over property use into the realm of criminal conduct involving threats to safety.

The court must evaluate whether the accused’s actions and words created a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm. The alleged statement regarding ruining part of the property and erecting another construction demonstrates an intent to disregard the complainant’s rights, potentially justifying the remand order to prevent further escalation.

Contractual Obligations vs. Criminal Liability

It is important to distinguish between civil disputes over contracts and criminal acts. While the core issue began with a property sale, the current court proceedings focus on the criminal behavior of trespass and threats. Even if there were unresolved contractual ambiguities (such as a dispute over scaffolding or unfinished works), the law does not permit a party to forcibly enter private property or threaten the owner to resolve such disputes. The proper venue for civil contractual disputes is a civil court, not a criminal trespass.

Practical Advice

Based on the details of this case, property owners and contractors can derive valuable lessons to avoid similar legal pitfalls.

For Property Owners

Secure Legal Possession: Upon the completion of a property purchase, it is vital to ensure that the seller vacates the premises immediately. Do not rely on verbal agreements regarding future occupancy or renovation timelines.

Document Communications: As seen in this case, the complainant clearly communicated his refusal for the accused to enter. Keeping a paper trail (emails, text messages, or official letters) is crucial evidence in court.

Know Your Rights: If a former seller or contractor attempts to enter your property without permission, you have the right to refuse entry. If they persist, contacting law enforcement to file a report for criminal trespass is the appropriate legal step.

For Contractors and Sellers

Respect Ownership Transfers: Once a property is sold and payment is received, the seller relinquishes control. Any continued interest in the property (e.g., for construction or retrieving equipment) must be negotiated and agreed upon in writing with the new owner.

Seek Legal Redress: If a dispute arises regarding unpaid fees or retained equipment on a sold property, contractors should pursue civil litigation rather than taking matters into their own hands. Self-help remedies, such as forced entry or threats, often lead to criminal charges.

FAQ

Conclusion

The case of Carlos Kwabena Allston serves as a stark reminder of the boundaries that govern property ownership and contractor rights. While the accused has denied the charges and is entitled to a fair trial scheduled for January 27, 2026, the allegations underscore the potential severity of trespassing and threatening behavior in real estate disputes. For Wise Roland Horgli, the legal system provides a pathway to protect his property and safety. For the broader public, this incident reinforces the necessity of adhering to legal protocols and respecting property boundaries to avoid criminal liability.