ABOAGYE vs. OPOKU [1960]DLHC5346

Date	1960-03-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1960]DLHC5346

OLLENNU J.

KWENIN FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

TWUM-BARIMA FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT

[1960]DLHC5346
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">ABOAGYE <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">OPOKU<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><a name="_gjdgxs"></a>[1960] GLR 67<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 0in 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

DATE:<span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0"> 28TH MARCH, 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 black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

KWENIN
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

TWUM-BARIMA
FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 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>(His lordship referred to the facts, and continued.)<o:p></o:p>The last paragraph of the trial court’s judgment contains findings
of fact, as well as a statement of customary law. The findings of fact are:—<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">(1) The land in
dispute immediately adjoins a cocoa farm belonging to the defendant;<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">(2) The
plaintiff acquired by purchase a farmstead also adjoining the forest land in
dispute;<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">(3) The
defendant was in possession of his cocoa farm long before the plaintiff
acquired title to his farmstead; 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">(4) Even if the
plaintiff did cultivate a portion of the alleged forest, there is no evidence
that he planted anything in the area so as to reduce it into his possession.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The statement of customary law is that a subject of a stool is
entitled to cultivate forest or vacant stool land adjoining which he has
already farmed, so as to reduce that forest or vacant area into an additional
farm, provided that by so doing he does not interfere with a similar right
which has accrued to another subject owning a farm on another side of the
forest or vacant land.<o:p></o:p>The facts found by the native court are amply supported by the
evidence on the record — even by evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses;
there can be no quarrel with these findings. As to the principle of customary
law enunciated by the native court, it is well to point out that that principle
was the very basis upon which the defendant had founded his case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In those circumstances the forest land in respect of which the
plaintiff sued cannot by customary law be in the exclusive possession of the
plaintiff, nor be one in which the plaintiff had a vested right to exclusive
possession at the date when the defendant cultivated it. Particularly is this
the case when, for thirteen years or more, the plaintiff had not made use of
his farmstead adjoining the forest, and had never planted anything on that
portion of the forest land which he alleged he had cleared. Since by customary
law the defendant too had a right to cultivate the forest land (or a portion of
it) he could not commit trespass to it, and by entering upon it, cultivating it
and planting it with cocoa, he did not infringe any possessory right of the
plaintiff, and did not commit trespass. The native court was therefore
justified in dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, and in entering judgment for the
defendant.<o:p></o:p>For the reasons given above the plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.</main>