KANO vs. ATAKPLA

The dispute concerned land at Ayikuma. In an earlier Native Court action, Atakpla had sued Kano over a letter (Exhibit “A”) in which Kano referred to Narteh in connection with the grant of a portion of land. In the present matter, Atakpla sought to rely on that earlier judgment as establishing his ownership and justifying notice to Kano to quit. The High Court held, however, that the earlier judgment did not declare Atakpla owner of the land and did not negate Kano’s interest as grantee. The evidence further showed that Atakpla had himself written to Kano not in his personal capacity as owner, but as agent of Kwami Larkotey, described as the present owner and son of the original owner. The real controversy therefore turned on whether Kano, having been granted land to build and settle and having improved and occupied it, could be ejected at will under customary law. Portion in judgment indicating this: “In that letter Atakpla expressly states that he was giving the notice, not in his personal capacity, but as an agent of Kwami Larkotey, the present owner of the land and son of the original owner.” Also: “By customary law, where an owner of land grants land to another person for purposes of building, and the grantee builds on that land and occupies it...”