ALIFO AND THE vs. AMEDZA [1961]DLSC566

Date	1961-03-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLSC566

VAN LARE JSC

SARKODEE-ADOO JSC

AKIWUMI JSC

J. C. ARMAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF

J. QUASHIE-IDUN FOR THE DEFENDANTS

[1961]DLSC566
																																						<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" >

&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT]

[1961] GLR 157

DATE: 17TH MARCH, 1961.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

J.
C. ARMAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

</div>

VAN LARE, SARKODEE-ADOO AND
AKIWUMI, JJ.S.C.

</div>

&nbsp;

Akiwumi J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. On or about
the 28th April, 1945, the defendant in this case instituted an action against
the plaintiffs in this case in the native court of Peki in which he claimed:

In that case judgment was given for the present plaintiffs. The
present defendant appealed to the native court of appeal which reversed the
judgment and ordered the plaintiffs to remain on their farms, but to pay each
by way of rent two loads of cocoa annually to the defendant. The nature of the
claim in that case was a claim for declaration of title to the land and for
rent for occupation of it. The plaintiffs being dissatisfied appealed to the
Land Court and on the 25th October, 1950, Coussey, J. dismissed the appeal and
confirmed the judgment of the native appeal court but amended it by adding
after the word “rent”, “or the value thereof on or before the 1st of January
each year.”

The plaintiffs still not satisfied appealed therefrom to the West
African Court of Appeal and on the 7th July, 1952, the appeal was dismissed.

In the meantime while the plaintiffs were busy appealing from
court to court the defendant by reason of the judgment of the native appeal
court in his favour ejected the plaintiffs from their farms and took possession
thereof. The plaintiffs finding there was no success for them appealed in vain
personally to the defendant to return the farms to them agreeing to pay the
rent of cocoa ordered against them. The defendant refusing their petitions, the
plaintiffs now instituted the present case against him. The claim reads as
follows:

“The plaintiffs litigated with defendant and cover the property
described in the claim below: The courts ruled that 2 loads of cocoa be given
to defendant annually. In contravention to the court’s order the defendants
have seized the farms and have been enjoying all the proceeds contrary to the
court’s ruling. Wherefore the plaintiffs claim from defendants an account of
the proceeds of farms situate and being at Peki and bounded on the east by Daa
Kofi and Akutu Kwasi’s properties on the west by Amedza Kwasi’s property on the
north by Amedza Kwasi’s property and the sought by Amedza Kwasi’s property
which area covers the individual farms of the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th
plaintiff’s. That the said farm of the 2nd plaintiff’s is bounded on the east
by Duncan Amedza’s property on the west by the Amedza Kwasi’s property and on
the south by Duncan Amedza’s property together in terms of the Court “B” Peki
on 28th April, 1945, which order was confirmed by Land Court on 25th October,
1950 and by the West African Court of Appeal but which order has been
contravened by defendant.”

The claim is clearly for an account of the amounts realised by the
defendant from the proceeds of cocoa grown on the farms from which he had
unlawfully ejected them thereby contravening the judgment or ruling of the
court in the previous case in which the present defendant did not claim for
possession. His claim was solely for declaration of title to the land and rent
to be paid by the present plaintiffs for occupying his land. In as much as the
defendant did not in his action claim for recovery of possession, his claim
clearly showed that there was a relation of landlord and tenant between him and
them as is shown by his writ. He was therefore wrong in ejecting the present
plaintiffs from the land without due process of law especially in the absence
of a decree for recovery of possession. In his evidence before the native court
the defendant in the present case boasted that: “When the West African Appeal
Court gave the judgment in my favour I ejected the [present] plaintiffs from
their farms. I took charge of the whole farms and managed everything by myself
and the proceeds of the farms as well became mine since then.”

The defendant was in wrongful occupation of the farms and enjoyed
the fruits therefrom for six</main>