KRAH vs. YEBOAH AND ANOTHER [1961]DLHC5407

Date	1961-10-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC5407

DJABANOR J.

E.K. WIREDU FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

P.D. ANIN FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT

[1961]DLHC5407
																																						<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">KRAH <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">YEBOAH AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;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, SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">[1961] GLR 592&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;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"> 21 OCTOBER, 1961.<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">

E.K.
WIREDU FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

P.D.
ANIN FOR THE PLAINTIFF-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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
DJABANOR J.<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal from the decision of Brong-Ahafo Central Local
Court at Wamfie where the plaintiff-respondent claimed that the defendants had
cleared the forest immediately in front of her cultivated cocoa farm and asked
the court to give her possession of same. The court gave judgment in her favour
and the appellants have now appealed to this court on several grounds.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts are not in dispute. Many years ago the first defendant’s
stool, the Krontire stool of Dormaa, granted a large piece of forest land
including the forest land in dispute, to certain Ningo people. Due to certain
political events that happened in the area they left this forest land and went
away. Recently the plaintiff and others, all subjects of Dormaa stool and
eligible to farm on krontire stool land, entered into the forest and made cocoa
farms therein. More recently still the defendants had also been making farms in
the same area. In extending this industry they cleared the forest immediately
adjoining the cocoa farms of the plaintiff for their own cultivation, thereby
frustrating the plaintiff’s plans of extending her farming in that direction.
The plaintiff therefore brought this action of trespass against the defendants.
The trial local court properly found that: “The important issue to be decided
by this court is whether the defendants have a right to cultivate the forest
lying in the immediate front of another person’s old farm and such practice is
permissible by native custom.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The trial court in framing the issue as it did appear to be
misdirecting itself on the onus of proof, but I do not think it did. The custom
was well expounded in the case of Aboagye v. Opoku1(1) as follows:<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 subject of a stool is entitled to cultivate forest land or
vacant stool land adjoining land he has already farmed, so as to reduce that
forest area into additional farming land, 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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In other words the plaintiff is perfectly entitled to farm any
vacant or forest land provided that it is not allocated. That to my mind means
that the plaintiff cannot claim the said vacant or forest land unless and until
she has commenced to farm it, or reduced it into her possession; and also
provided that the forest land is unallocated.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I have it on the authority of Korang v. Atta &amp; Ors.2(2) that
“unclaimed forest land cannot be regarded as having been reduced into
possession sufficient to support an action for trespass brought by one seeking
to develop and cultivate the land, until such time as the would-be possessor
has established the boundaries, cleared the land, and brought it under
cultivation.” This was the view expressed by the Asantehene’s court in a
similar case of Anane v. Mensah3(3). I accept that as the correct statement of
the native custom in dealing with this case; and guided by this principle I
must hold that the plaintiff-respondent failed to establish her claim in the
local court, for the following reasons: the boundaries of this forest land have
not been ascertained; the forest has not been reduced into the plaintiff’s
possession; and there is evidence from the plaintiff’s second witness that t</main>