ATTRAMS AND OTHERS vs. AFRIYIE II AND 5 OTHERS [1962]DLHC1372

Date	1962-04-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1372

DJABANOR J.

J. N. HEWARD-MILLS AND G. DAVEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

N. Y. B. ADADE FOR THE FIRST THIRD AND SIXTH DEFENDANTS.

JONES FOR THE SECOND AND FIFTH DEFENDANTS.

[1962]DLHC1372
																																						<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:#00B0F0">ATTRAMS AND OTHERS<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:#00B0F0">&nbsp;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:#00B0F0">AFRIYIE II AND 5 OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 283<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

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"> 18TH APRIL, 1962.<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">

J.
N. HEWARD-MILLS AND G. DAVEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

N.
Y. B. ADADE FOR THE FIRST THIRD AND SIXTH DEFENDANTS.<o:p></o:p>

JONES
FOR THE SECOND AND FIFTH DEFENDANTS.<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>[His lordship reviewed the evidence in detail and found in favour
of the plaintiffs on the issue of title. On the question of the application of
Act 107 and the protection it afforded to the second—sixth defendants, his
lordship continued:] I must now come to determine the effect of the Farm Lands
(Protection) Act, 1962.1(1) The purpose of that Act is to protect farmers whose
titles to land are found to be defective. Section 2 is the most relevant
clause. Section 1 does not apply. Section 2 (1) is in the following terms:<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">“Where a farmer has, in good faith, at any time after the
thirty-first day of December, 1940, and before the commencement of this Act,
acquired any land by customary law or otherwise in a prescribed area for
purposes of farming and has begun farming on that land within eight years from
the date of such acquisition, this section shall notwithstanding any defect in
the title to the contrary, operate to confer valid title on such farmer:<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">Provided that the land in question had not been farmed by any
other person for a period of eight years previous to the acquisition by the
farmer.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I must first observe that if the defendants are seeking the
protection afforded by this section they must bring themselves within its
ambit. They must satisfy the prerequisites. In that regard the first
prerequisite is that they must show that they acquired the land by customary
law or otherwise. On this there is ample evidence. Next they must show that
they acquired the land in good faith. It is suggested by counsel for the
plaintiffs that this good faith must exist not only at the time of the
acquisition but also continue; and that if it be shown that this good faith
ceased to exist at any time subsequent to the date of the acquisition, from
that date the protection ends, and the land cultivated since this date should
not be protected. Unfortunately, even if I were to hold so, I would have to
ascertain the extent of land actually farmed at the date the good faith ended.
There is no evidence in that regard here. I think it would be impossible to
ascertain. I think that the good faith must exist at the date of first
acquisition only. In this connection the evidence adduced by the defendants is
to the effect that when they first went on to the land it was a large forest
with no farms any where near them. The Kyempo stool did not tell them that the
land had been previously sold to the plaintiffs, and they did not know. If
Tetter Kwao warned them at all, counsel contended, he must have done so
sometime after they had established themselves on the land. I am certain that
if they had been told that the land had been previously sold to the plaintiffs
the defendants would not have agreed to acquire same. As one of the witnesses,
Ampadu Darko, said, farmers do not like litigation, and would have refused to
acquire the land in those circumstances. I am prepared to hold that the
acquisition was made in good faith. I also hold that giving it its ordinary
meaning the section can only be interpreted to mean that any farmer who has
acquired the land in good faith and has begun farming on that land within eight
years from the date of such acquisition can be protected. The key word there is
“acquired”, and that is not a continuous process. I hold that the defendants
satisfy these conditions in section 2 (1). But there is a proviso to the
section. It says: “Provided that the land in question had not been farmed by
any other person for a period of eight years previous to the acquisition by the
farmer”. What does this mean? What is the land in question in this case? Is it
the lands of the respective defendants herein or the land claimed by the
plaintiffs? If it is the latter then the defendants cannot be protected because
the plaintiffs had been farming on portions of the land for a period of eight
years previous to the acquisition by the farmer. In my view the correct
interpretation is that the land in question must not have been farmed by any
other person for a period of eight years previous to the acquisition by the
farmer of his land. It is his own land that must not have been farmed. In the
result 1 think that the defendants have brought themselves under the subsection
and they are to be protected.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>