GYETUA vs. BOAFO [1964]DLSC1905

Date	1964-06-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1905

OLLENNU JSC

ACOLATSE JSC

APALOO J.S.C.

OHENE-AMPOFO (OKORLEY WITH HIM) FOR THE APPELLANT.

N. Y. B. ADADE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1964]DLSC1905
																																						<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" >GYETUA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>BOAFO <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 443<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:
29TH JUNE 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">

OHENE-AMPOFO (OKORLEY WITH HIM) FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

N. Y. B. ADADE 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">

OLLENNU, ACOLATSE AND APALOO JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Kumasi (Djabanor J.)1 delivered
on 10 January 1962. That judgment reversed the decision of the Kumasi West
Local Court which dismissed the claim of the plaintiff-appellant-respondent
(hereinafter called the respondent) for a declaration of title to a cocoa farm
said to be situate at a place called Pobriso on Manfo stool land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent’s case is far from complex and can be put simply. According to him,
about fifteen or sixteen years before he issued the writ, the Manfo stool
litigated with the Akwaboa stool on what was described as Manfo lands. The
Manfo stool emerged victorious in that litigation. The respondent said that
when that action was sub judice, he rendered assistance to the then occupant of
the stool by name Boateng. When the action was determined in favour of the
Manfo stool, he asked and was granted by the stool an area of forest land which
he described as situated at Pobriso. He made a cocoa farm on a portion of it.
The appellant claiming to be the owner of that land which he called Akrakosua,
sued him for a declaration of title. The respondent testified that the
appellant recovered judgment against him. Although this judgment was upset on
appeal by the Asantehene’s Court, it was restored by the High Court and was
further upheld by the West African Court of Appeal. After this judgment,
according to the respondent, the appellant removed cocoa from his Pobriso farm
and thus gave rise to the present action in which he claimed a declaration of
title and consequential relief.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant’s case is that the respondent was his friend and it was he who
allocated to him a piece of forest land which he had reserved for himself. He
said he showed the respondent the extent to which he could cultivate. According
to the appellant, he had occasion to travel at some time and upon his return,
he discovered that a man called Okyere had trespassed and cultivated part of
his forest. He said he recovered that area from him after a complaint he made
to the elders was decided in his favour. The appellant said he planted cocoa in
that area and also cultivated a portion of his reserved forest but had to leave
off to go to the Ivory Coast where he sojourned for nearly two years. According
to the appellant, on his return from the Ivory Coast, he found that the
respondent had trespassed on and cultivated and made further extension to his
remaining forest. The appellant said when he questioned the respondent about
this, he disputed his title and falsely claimed that the land was granted to
him by Yaw Boateng the Odikro of Manfo. Accordingly, the appellant said he sued
him for title to the land which he called Akrakosua and was successful in the
trial local court, the High Court and in the West African Court of Appeal. He
produced in evidence the judgment of the West District Court (exhibit A) and
that of the High Court (exhibit C). The appellant said that after the
litigation determined in his favour, he collected cocoa from the farms adjudged
to belong to him and the respondent commenced proceedings all over again by
issuing the writ in the instant case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As I see
it, the issues which the local court was called upon to determine are: firstly,
was the land in dispute which the respondent called Pobriso and which the
appellant called Akrakosua granted to the respondent by the Manfo stool or was
it allocated to the respondent by the appellant and secondly, is the land in
dispute in the instant case identical with the land in respect of which the
appellant recovered judgment against the respondent in the former suit? After
hearing evidence, the local court magistrate conducted an inspection of the
locus in quo. Shortly afterwards he delivered judgment in which he determined
the two issues I propounded above in favour of the appellant. He felt satisfied
that it was the appellant who, to use his own words, “offered” the land to the
respondent. The magistrate considered that as the respondent disputed the
appellant’s title, he was liable to forfeit the land to him. Having also found
that the land which was the subject-matter of the earlier action, is again the
subject of the present dispute, he held that the respondent was estopped per
rem judicatam by the judgment admittedly given against him in the former
action. Accordingly, he proceeded to dismiss the action.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent feeling aggrieved by that judgment, appealed to the High Court,
Kumasi.2 In that court, the le</main>