NTI vs. SUNYANIHENE AND OTHERS [1962]DLHC1604

Date	1962-11-02
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1604

BRUCE-LYLE J.

AGYEPONG FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

ANIN FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1962]DLHC1604
																																						<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">NTI <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">SUNYANIHENE AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 364<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"> 2ND NOVEMBER, 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">

AGYEPONG
FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

BRUCE-LYLE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
BRUCE-LYLE J.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff’s claim is for: (1) an order of the court to set
aside the sale of the plaintiff’s cocoa farm which was sold by public auction
by the third defendant at the instance of the first defendant to the second
defendant; (2) £G600 damages against the defendants jointly and severally for
wrongful sale of the plaintiff’s said cocoa farm; and (3) perpetual injunction
restraining the first and third defendants, their agents servants and/or
workmen from interfering with or having anything to do with the plaintiff’s
said cocoa farm.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case for the plaintiff is that the first defendant in this
case on the 14th September, 1960, took action against the plaintiff in the
Urban Council Court, Sunyani, for arrears of tribute of £46 10s. in respect of
a farm situate at Nanketewa on Sunyani stool land, and the defendant had
judgment on the 4th November, 1960. On the 7th November, 1960, the plaintiff
filed a notice of intention to appeal in the urban council court and a copy of
the notice was lodged in the District Court, Wenchi. After the plaintiff had filed
the notice of intention to appeal, the defendant went into execution and sold
the farm of the plaintiff on the 12th May, 1961. The farm was sold by the
second defendant at the instance of the first defendant and on the instructions
of the urban council court, and bought by the third defendant for £G80. The
plaintiff said that this farm had earlier been pledged by the plaintiff to the
third defendant for £G370. The plaintiff alleged in the statement of claim that
there was collusion between the second and third defendants, on the grounds
that the property worth £G700 was sold below that price, and that the third
defendant, who bought the property, knew that the property had already been
pledged to him. Counsel for the plaintiff neither adduced evidence nor argued
in support of these grounds and appeared to rely solely on the ground that the
sale was wrong in law.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The defendant did not call evidence and submitted that the claim
for farm tribute is a claim for ownership, occupation and possession of land
and therefore an appeal from the local court lay to the Land Court and not to
the district court. Further, that the notice of intention to appeal to the
district court was of no effect and, therefore, no appeal was pending before
the sale of the farm.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the issue of whether or not a claim for farm tribute in respect
of land is one for ownership, occupation or possession of land, both counsel
relied on the case of Adu Kofi v. Chief Kwasi Brentuo.1(1) What this case laid
down can be summarised in this way. That where there is a claim for farm
tribute and the defendant admits liability then it is a claim for money and not
one for ownership, occupation or possession of land, but where the defendant
denies liability then the court should find out what the plaintiff claims and
what the defence is, to enable it to decide the nature of the claim. This
authority did not lay down a hard and fast principle that a claim for farm
tribute is a claim for ownership, occupation or possession of land. I find,
however, that in claims for farm tribute, where the defendant denies liability,
the plaintiff’s title is, in most of these cases, put into issue and this makes
those claims, claims for ownership, occupation and possession of land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I have examined the record of proceedings of the urban council
court, exhibit A, and I am satisfied that this was a claim for farm tribute and
both the plea of not liable and the nature of the defence show clearly that it
was a claim for ownership, occupation and possession of land. An appeal from
the decision of the urban council court on this matter therefore lay to the
Land Court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>