ASIAMA AND OTHERS vs. ADJABENG AND OTHERS [1971]DLCA2083

Date	1971-05-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLCA2083

SIRIBOE J.S.C.

ANIN JA

ARCHER J.A.

K. DUA-SAKYI FOR THE APPELLANTS

E. K. N. OLAGA FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1971]DLCA2083
																																						<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" >ASIAMA AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ADJABENG AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1971] 2 GLR 171<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:
17 MAY 1971.<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">

K.
DUA-SAKYI FOR THE APPELLANTS<o:p></o:p>

E. K. N.
OLAGA FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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">

SIRIBOE J.S.C., ANIN AND ARCHER JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANIN J.A.<o:p></o:p>Anin J.A.
delivered the judgment of the court. The plaintiffs, members of a land
syndicate, instituted this action in the Accra High Court for a declaration of
title to a tract of land known as Akwamu Kotoku land situate at Worobong near
Begoro. They also claimed recovery of possession of the area trespassed upon,
damages for trespass, and injunction against the defendants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiffs’ case, as appearing from the statement of claim, is that, as members
of a land syndicate, they purchased the land in 1924 from the Begoro stool
during the reign of the late Nana Twum Antwi. They entered into possession
after the alleged purchase and cultivated cocoa and food crops on the land.
Later, between the years 1928 and 1929, the government acquired the land as
part of a forest reserve, and they were prohibited from entering the reserve.
During the ensuing inquiry conducted by the Reserve Settlement Commissioner,
Mr. W. H. Beeton, in 1935 (hereinafter called the “Beeton inquiry” or
“Beeton”), the alienation made to the plaintiffs’ syndicate was not disputed
either by the Begoro stool or by any other person. The plaintiffs further
alleged that after the Beeton inquiry, their rights of ownership to the land
were confirmed and demarcated on the inquiry plan by an order of the Governor,
No. 17 of 1936 (exhibit B) without any objection. The plaintiffs disclosed that
in December 1952 their farms were the subject-matter of another forest reserve
inquiry (hereinafter called the “Cooke inquiry” or “Cooke”); and they
eventually secured the release of their farms. They re-entered their property
in 1953. From that date until the commencement of this action in 1962, the
defendants, all subjects of the Begoro stool, and therefore bound by the acts
of the stool, trespassed persistently on their land despite protests from the
plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By an
amendment to the statement of claim, the plaintiffs pleaded that the defendants
are “estopped by conduct from challenging their title in that they sat by and
acquiesced in the plaintiffs’ proof of their title before the Beeton inquiry.”
They further pleaded that the defendants are estopped by record on account of
the findings of the said commission of inquiry.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In their
statement of defence, the defendants averred that they had been in continuous
and undisturbed possession of the disputed land for a period of twelve to
fifteen years and had cultivated farms out of virgin forest and established
farming communities therein. They denied the alleged sale of the land by the
Begoro stool to the plaintiffs. They alleged that in 1926 the Begorohene
evinced an intention to sell the disputed land to the plaintiffs. But before
the actual customary sale and payment of the purchase price could be made, the
government incorporated the disputed land in a proposed forest reserve
acquisition which came into force in 1927. With regard to the Beeton and Cooke
inquiries, the defendants denied that the plaintiffs either laid any claim to
the disputed land or were prohibited from entering it or secured its release as
alleged. The defendants contended that the release of the said land in 1952 was
not due to any representations made by the plaintiffs. The land was in fact
released to the Begoro stool for the benefit of the subjects of the stool
generally. As subjects, the defendants asserted their native customary right of
entering the land and cultivating farms on unoccupied virgin forest land. In
the circumstances, they denied having trespassed on the disputed land, and
contended that it was rather the plaintiffs who had trespassed on their farms
since 1961.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By a
later amendment of their defence, th</main>