ADJEI III v. ADJEDU II

JUDGMENT OF LORD KEITH OF AVANHOLM He delivered the judgment of their Lordships. [He referred to the facts as set out in the headnote and the previous proceedings and continued:] The present proceedings were initiated by the Ohene of the Okadjakrom stool against the Ohene of the Atonkor stool for (1) declaration of title to the said land: (2) damages for trespass; and (3) injunction. He relied on the judgment of the 2nd July, 1940, and the subsequent interlocutory proceedings as constituting an estoppel per rem judicatam against the Atonkor stool. In the statement of defence the Atonkor stool contended that the judgment of the 2nd July, 1940, was not complete and did not constitute an estoppel per rem judicatam. It in turn claimed a declaration of title and an injunction. The Supreme Court (Korsah, Ag. C.J.) held that by virtue of the previous proceedings the Atonkor stool was estopped from denying the plaintiff’s title and granted perpetual injunction as craved. On appeal to the .....