GAWU III AND ANOTHER vs. PONUKU [1960]DLHC316

Date	1960-04-21
Suit No.	-
Citation No.	[1960]DLHC316

OLLENNU J.

KOM FOR THE PLAINTIFFS (APPELLANT).

DOE FOR THE DEFENDANT (RESPONDENT).

[1960]DLHC316
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >GAWU III AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>PONUKU<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1960] GLR 101<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
21ST APRIL, 1960.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

KOM FOR THE PLAINTIFFS (APPELLANT).<o:p></o:p>

DOE FOR THE DEFENDANT (RESPONDENT).<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

OLLENNU, J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>In this
appeal from a judgment of the West Akim Abuakwa Local Court “A” delivered on
the 21st November, 1959 it is contended on behalf of the appellant who was
plaintiff that the judgment is wrong in two respects, namely, (a) that the
local court wrongly held that there had been acquiescence on the part of the
plaintiff in trespass committed by the defendant and therefore he was not
entitled to an order for recovery of possession, and (b) that the local court
was wrong in making an order for recovery of possession in favour of the
defendant-respondent who had not counter-claimed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Learned
counsel argued that for acquiescence to operate as an estoppel it must be shown
to be laches amounting to fraud, and cited the case of Willmott v. Barber (15
Ch.D. 96) which was relied upon by the West African Court of Appeal in the case
of Abbey v. Ollennu (14 W.A.C.A. 567) in support of that submission. As a
proposition of law, that submission is sound; and that appears to be the
principle applied by the local court in this case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>For a
proper appreciation of my decision in this case, both as to the facts and the
law, it is necessary to refer to the writ of summons in extenso. The said writ
is as follows:-<o:p></o:p>“The
plaintiffs as joint customary inheritors to and of real properties left by the
late Kofi Koogblame (deceased) claim against the defendant for declaration of
right title and interest to, and recovery of possession of all that piece or
parcel of land with cocoa farm thereon situate lying and being at Yunse near
Asamankese which form part and parcel of three native ropes of 24 fathoms each
of land originally owned by the late Kofi Koogblame, plaintiffs’ deceased
father and uncle. The property in dispute is bounded on one side by plaintiffs’
property, on one side by Tetteh Kutor’s property, on one side by Kwaku Ponuku’s
(defendant’s) property and on one side by Kwadjo Amaning’s property. 2. Order
of court for straightening and rectification of boundary line between the
properties of plaintiffs and defendant by court. In the alternative plaintiff
claims £100 damages from the defendant”.<o:p></o:p>Analysis
of this writ of summons reveals the following averments or statements of acts:<o:p></o:p>1. That
the defendant is in possession of the piece or parcel of land with cocoa farm
thereon described in the writ of summons;<o:p></o:p>2. That
the said farm forms boundary with farm or land belonging to the plaintiffs on
one side, and with farm or land of the defendant on the opposite side; and it
contains a prayer for:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(a) Declaration of title to the
said piece or parcel of land,<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(b) An order for demarcation of
boundary between adjoining lands of the plaintiffs and the defendant, and<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(c) In the alternative damages
for trespass.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>