AMANKWANOR vs. ASARE [1966]DLSC1647

Date	1966-06-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLSC1647

MILLS-ODOI JSC

BRUCE-LYLE JSC

SIRIBOE J.S.C.

A. W. ACQUAAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.

[1966]DLSC1647
																																						<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" >AMANKWANOR<o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ASARE <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 598<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 JUNE 1966.<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">

A. W. ACQUAAH FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF 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">

MILLS-ODOI, BRUCE-LYLE AND SIRIBOE
JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SIRIBOE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Siriboe J.S.C.
delivered the judgment of the court. This is an appeal from the judgment of
Prempeh J. (as he then was) sitting in the High Court, Accra, in exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction from a judgment of the West Akim Abuakwa Local
Court, Division 2. For the sake of the sake of convenience the parties will
hereafter be referred to simply as the plaintiff and defendant respectively.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff’s claims before the local court were for: (a) £G100 damages for
trespass to a piece of land with cocoa thereon situate at a place called
Krodua; (b) an order for account during the 1961-62 cocoa season and (c)
ejectment of the defendant, his workmen, agents or servants from the said land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
of the case about which there appears to be very little controversy are these:
about 30 years before the date of the trial of this action, one Kwame Adu, an
uncle of the plaintiff, acquired from the then Odikro of Krodua called Kwabena
Nketia, a piece of land for the purpose of cultivating a cocoa farm. The
agreement reached between them was that when the cocoa started to bear fruit
the farm was to be divided into three parts, that is to say, one-third for the
Odikro and the remaining two-thirds for the plaintiff’s predecessor.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After the
division had taken place as indicated, the Odikro later sold part of his
one-third portion to one Paul Darko, the father of the defendant who has since
died, and whose successor the defendant is. Kwame Adu too is dead, and so is
his brother, one Kwabena Okyere who succeeded him. It was after the latter’s
death that the plaintiff was appointed successor.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
lifetime of Kwabena Okyere, the defendant was alleged to have trespassed onto
the former’s portion when a complaint was lodged against him before the
plaintiff’s first witness, Kwame Anin (the present Odikro of Krodua), who had
succeeded the late odikro. At an arbitration, the defendant relied on a
purchase of the land, and when he was challenged to produce the document
evidencing it, he asked for two weeks, but could not do so.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After
Okyere’s death, the defendant repeated the act of trespass by collecting cocoa
from the plaintiff’s portion resulting in differences between them which
eventually went before the police. Upon investigations, the matter was referred
to the plaintiff’s first witness for settlement, but the defendant refused to
accompany the arbitrators to have the boundary between them demarcated, so the
plaintiff brought this action claiming the aforementioned reliefs.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It
appears from the evidence that the defendant did not seriously dispute the act
of trespass complained of, but based his case on a document, exhibit A, and on
the oral testimony of two witnesses he called. Exhibit A, according to the
defendant, was prepared for him by the present Odikro of Krodua, the plaintiff’s
first witness, to replace an original paper the plaintiff’s first witness’s
predecessor gave to the defendant’s father evidencing the sale of the farm to
the latter, which the plaintiff said he could not trace.<o:p><</main>