WUTA-OFEI vs. DANQUAH

The dispute concerned land over which the respondent claimed prior possession derived from a grant made in 1939. The appellant entered the land in 1948 and the respondent sued in trespass. The central factual controversy was whether the respondent was still in possession at the date of the appellant’s entry, particularly after the coming into force of the relevant Ordinance on 26 October 1940. The judgment indicates that the respondent relied on matters such as boundary pillars, a 1945 registered indenture reciting that she had entered into possession and remained in possession, and evidence that her mother watched over the plot and that she acted promptly when the appellant placed blocks on the land. Portion of judgment: “In order to maintain an action for trespass the respondent must have been in possession at the date of the appellant's entry on the land in 1948.” Also: “In the indenture of 1945, which was registered, the respondent declared that she had entered into possession of the land and been in possession ever since… she deputed her mother to look after the plot and that she was keeping watch on the land to see that no one intruded.”

LORD GUEST Lord Guest delivered the judgment of their Lordships. [After stating the facts as set out in the headnote he continued.:] In order to maintain an action for trespass the respondent must have been in possession at the date of the appellant's entry on the land in 1948. This is very largely a question of fact upon which the Board do not have the benefit of much evidence. Nor do they have the assistance of the courts below. The reason is that at the stage when evidence was being led and the appeal being heard the parties and the court were concentrating on the question of title and the question of possession was not closely examined. The appellant maintained that there was not sufficient evidence to establish that the respondent was in possession at the critical period. It was argued, first, that assuming she was in possession before the 26th October, 1940, the date of the Ordinance, her possession was determined either under section 2(1) or section 5(4) of the Ordinance. ...