NGMATI vs. ADETSIA & ORS.

The plaintiff, a subject of the Yilo Krobo Stool, claimed ancestral land around Krobo Hill, farmed by his ancestors about 200 years ago. The defendants, including the 1st codefendant representing the Manya Krobo Stool, disputed ownership, asserting the land belonged to the Manya Krobo Stool and that the plaintiff's ancestors, being Yilo and not Manya Krobo subjects, could not have acquired title. Evidence showed the plaintiff's family had ancestral possession, supported by witnesses including neighboring landowners. The defendants admitted long-term occupation but denied trespass on the plaintiff's land. The 2nd codefendant claimed individual ownership of the land but lacked authority and documentary support. The dispute centered on boundaries between Yilo and Manya Krobo lands and ancestral rights to the land in question.

(His lordship stated the history of the matter, and continued:-) The evidence led by the plaintiff and his witnesses was that about 200 years ago, while the Krobos were still living on the Krobo Hill, his ancestors farmed a portion of the land round about that hill. This was not challenged by the defendants or by the 1st co-defendant. They appeared not to know whether or not the plaintiff’s family owned a portion of the Okwenya lands, which form part of the lands in the plains round and about the hill. A very feeble attempt was made by the 2nd co-defendant to challenge the plaintiff’s evidence as to his ancestors’ acquisition of the land. What the defendants and the 1st co-defendant say is that the whole of the land at Okwenya belong to the Konor of Manya Krobo, and that the plaintiff’s ancestors could not have farmed that land to acquire title to the same, they being Yilo and not Menya Krobo subjects. The implication of the tradition as to the mode of acquisition of t...