AMEODA vs. PORDIER & AMEODA v. FORZI & OTHERS (CONSOLIDATED) [1967]DLCA1448

Date	1967-07-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1967]DLCA1448

AZU CRABBE JA

APALOO JA

AMISSAH J.A.

CUDJOE (ADAMS WITH HIM) FOR THE APPELLANT.

OLAGA FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1967]DLCA1448
																																						<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" >AMEODA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>PORDIER &amp; AMEODA v. FORZI &amp; OTHERS (CONSOLIDATED) <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>[1967] GLR 479<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:
10 JULY 1967.<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">

CUDJOE (ADAMS WITH HIM) FOR THE APPELLANT.<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">

AZU CRABBE, APALOO AND AMISSAH JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.A.<o:p></o:p>This
appeal is from the judgment of Ollennu J. (as he then was) delivered in the
High Court, Accra, on 30 March 1962, reported in [1962] 1 G.L.R. 200. That
judgment dismissed two claims brought by the appellant’s family against two
individuals to recover two separate pieces of land claimed to belong to the
appellant’s family at Ningo. The actions were consolidated and were numbered at
145/60 and 8/61 respectively.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Although
it is possible that there might have been differences between the families of
the appellant and the respondents in the past, what appears to have triggered
off the present litigation was the refusal of the respondents to give to the
appellant’s family a cow. It was said by the appellant that an agreement was
entered into between their respective predecessors in title by which the
respondents’ predecessors agreed in consideration of being permitted to live
and pasture cows on the lands in dispute to give one cow each to the
appellant’s family. It was said the predecessors of the respondents did not
implement this agreement before their demise and this agreement was sought to
be enforced against their successors—the present respondents. The latter did
not only deny the agreements and their liability thereunder, but claimed that such
agreement could not have been made inasmuch as the lands at no time belonged to
the appellant’s family. The lands, they claimed, belonged to the stool of Ningo
whose subjects their predecessors were and they said they lived on the land in
virtue of their customary right as subjects of the stool. The appellant’s
family who claimed the lands as their ancestral property, replied to this by
orally revoking the respondents’ licence to remain on the lands. They followed
this with a formal solicitor’s letter which confirmed the revocation of the
licences and requested the respondents to vacate the land within seven days or
face court action for ejectment and damages. The respondents did not comply and
the sequel to it was this action in which the appellant’s family claimed
against each of the respondents, recovery of possession, perpetual injunction
and damages.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As the
respondents set up jus tertii as a defence, namely, that the title to the lands
was vested not in themselves but in the stool of Ningo, it was necessary for
this entity to join the action and establish this assertion which the
appellant’s family seriously disputed. This position was appreciated and some
time before the pleadings closed, Nene Tei Doku Aguda III, the paramount chief
of Ningo, applied to join the action. His avowed object for wishing to do so
was to defend the interests of his stool and in paragraph (4) of his affidavit,
he says, “That to the best of my knowledge and belief, all that piece of land
including Akwaaba and Tekpanya as described on the writ of summons is all Ningo
stool land.” The application was acceded to and he was accordingly joined to
establish his stool’s title to the lands in dispute. The appellant joined issue
with the stool of Ningo on their claim of ownership and averred in paragraph
(2) of the statement of reply that, “the plaintiff emphatically denies that all
lands at Ningo are stool or communal lands or both. Ningo lands are owned by
various Ningo families and not by the Ningo stool.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Thus as
far as the ownership of the lands was concerned, the contest was between the
appellant’s family and the Ningo stool. Accordingly the learned trial judge was
invited to decide as the first issue on the summons for directions the
question, “Whether all Ningo lands are stool lands or Ningo lands are owned by
various Ningo families?”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Accordingly,
what began as a paltry claim for one cow became a serious land litigation
between the appellant’s family on one side and the stool of Ningo on the other.
The question whether or not the respondents’ predecessors agreed to give one
cow each to the appellant’s family as consideration for being permitted to live
and pasture cows on the land or whether they were bound by custom to make such
gift, became a secondary issue of relatively minor importance.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></sp</main>