NTORIH vs. LAGOS [1964]DLHC1932

Date	1964-11-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLHC1932

KORANTENG-ADDOW J.

Y. B. DARKWA-DWAMINA FOR THE APPELLANT.

SAMPSON BAIDOO FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1964]DLHC1932
																																						<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" >NTORIH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>LAGOS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 643<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">

DATE:
27 NOVEMBER 1964.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

Y. B. DARKWA-DWAMINA FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

SAMPSON BAIDOO FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the decision of the Local Court of Sefwi-Wiawso which was
delivered on 20 March 1964. The facts of the case are simple. The plaintiff is
the chief of Enwhia, representing the stool of Enwhia and he brought this
action against the defendant who represented the members of the Yuroba Moslem
community in Wiawso, claiming damages for trespass. The trespass complained of
was that the defendants in spite of a warning were erecting a building (a
mosque) on the plot of land belonging to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff
the land is his ancestral property and his ancestor had a dwelling house
thereon.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From the
evidence it appears that the said land was a grant or presumed grant from the
Omanhene of Sefwi-Wiawso. The ancestral house set up on the land is no longer
there. Another significant fact is that in more recent times, about thirteen
years prior to the institution of this action, a public bath-house had been
built on the land by the Wiawso Local Council. According to the plaintiff, the
said public bath had been demolished about four years before the events which
led to this action. He said in cross-examination, “There was a bath-room for
the public built by the local council on the disputed plot about thirteen years
ago. The bath-room was demolished about four years ago.” The defendants however
maintain that the said public bath was still in existence on the land but that
it was “an unpatronised public bath-room.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Omanhene of Sefwi Wiawso, Nana Kwadjo Aduhene, the first witness for the
plaintiff supported the plaintiff in his contention that the land in dispute is
the ancestral property of the plaintiff. He said in his evidence that “the plot
in dispute is the property of the Enwhia stool.” The plaintiff by his second
witness, Kwame Nkrumah, led evidence that he has all along been in possession
of the disputed land and that he had recently been fined by the court when his
representative on the land failed to keep the plot tidy. There is also evidence
that the plaintiff protested to the local council by letter when he found out
that the council was purporting to deal with the land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants do not lay any claims to the land in their own right as owners.
According to them they only obtained a grant of the land recently as a result
of negotiations which started towards the end of 1963 and ended early in 1964.
The land was granted to them on condition that they paid the cost of the
disused public bath situate on the land, computed at £G16. In addition to that
amount which they duly paid, they paid an amount of £G2 in respect of the
grant. Receipts covering these payments were tendered in evidence. The
defendants called the clerk of council, one Mr. Tandoh, who supported their
evidence as to the mode of acquisition. How the local council got on to the
land in dispute to erect the public bath some thirteen years prior to the
institution of this action is unexplained by the evidence. The council does not
claim any proprietary interests in the land. All the clerk of the council
deposed to is how the grant came to be made and how and by what authority it
was made.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The local
court magistrate dismissed the plaintiff’s claim and gave judgment for the
defendants. The reason for the judgment of the local court is mainly that the
local council had been in long occupation of the land for twelve years without
disturbance and that during the said possession they had converted the same
into a sanitary area and erected a public bath thereon. According to the local
court magistrate the long occupation had ripened into a sort of right in the
local council from which the council should not be ousted. This right the
magistrate classifies as “the right of control and management.” The local court
magistrate called in aid the Limitation Act, 1939,1 and cited Dr. Danquah’s
Akan Laws. On the question of the validity of the transfer of the plot to the
defendants, the magistrate held the view that the transaction was above board
as it had due publicity and also because it had the blessing of the regional
commissioner who acted for the Minister of Local Government in approving the
transaction.<o:p></o:p>