FRIMPONG vs. NANA ASARE OBENG II [1973]DLHC2278

Date	1973-10-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2278

EDWARD WIREDU J.

AFRIFAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

B. G. HUTCHFUL FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLHC2278
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">FRIMPONG <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">NANA ASARE OBENG II <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE
COAST]<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;[1974] 1 GLR 16<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:
20 OCTOBER 1973.<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">

AFRIFAH
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">

EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the ruling of the District Court Grade I, Akim Oda, dated 23
August 1973. In that ruling the district court on the application of the
plaintiff-respondent (who shall hereafter be referred to simply as the
plaintiff) granted an interim order of injunction restraining both the
plaintiff and the defendant-appellant (who shall also hereafter be referred to
in short as the defendant) from interfering or dealing in any way with a number
of timber trees felled by the defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The brief
facts of this case may be summarised as follows. The plaintiff is the ohene of
Bontodiase in the Akim Kotoku area and the defendant is a concessionaire
operating a timber concession in an area abutting the plaintiff’s stool land.
The facts on record show that in the course of the operations the defendant
felled some logs in an area which was subsequently detected to lie outside the
area of his concession. This area on the undisputed evidence fell within an
area being claimed by the plaintiff’s stool. As a result of this the plaintiff
reported the matter to the appropriate governmental authorities, namely, the
Lands, and Forestry Departments and the police. Following the report the
Forestry and Lands Departments acting in concert under the Forests Ordinance,
Cap. 157 (1951 Rev.), the Trees and Timber Ordinance, Cap. 158 (1951 Rev.), the
Administration of Lands Act, 1962 (Act 123), the Concessions Act, 1962 (Act
124), and the Forest Offences (Compounding of Trees) Act, 1959 (No. 83 of
1959), respectively, conducted a survey of the area where the trees were felled
and on becoming satisfied that the trees were illegally felled imposed a fine
of ¢300.00 on the defendant. Following this the senior lands officer, Akim Oda,
as the administrator of stool lands in the Akim Kotoku area impounded the
trees, assessed the royalties payable on them and demanded the same from the
defendant. The facts further show that by a letter dated 3 August 1973, and
used as exhibit C and attached to the defendant’s affidavit in opposition to
the plaintiff’s application for an interim injunction, the Lands Department
wrote to the defendant as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“Following
the inspection of your illegal timber operation in the above area by a combined
team of police, forestry and officers of the Lands Department and a subsequent
action of the Forestry Department under Trees and Timber Regulations, you are
hereby authorised to remove the logs which stumps were checked, subject to
payment of the tree royalties involved. This action is taken to prevent the
logs from detiorating [sic.] thereby losing their commercial value.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">The tree
royalties, if paid, will be placed on deposit until the disputed area is
resolved.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Meanwhile,
I have to warn you that no additional tree should be felled in that area in the
course of removing the logs and you should confine all your operations in the
area approved for you by the Lands Commission.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
dispute over the area where the trees were felled by the defendant as contained
in exhibit C according to learned counsel for the defendant is between the
plaintiff’s stool and another stool which is still pending for determination.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
meantime the plaintiff worried about the delay in taking action against the
defendant by the authorities on 23 July 1973, applied for a writ of summons in
the District </main>