ELLIS AND WOOD FAMILIES vs. NANA BAFFOUR II AND ANOTHER [1974]DLHC2276

Date	1974-07-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1974]DLHC2276

EDWARD WIREDU J.

U.V. CAMPBELL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

J.A. DAWSON ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE SECOND DEFENDANT.

[1974]DLHC2276
																																						<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">ELLIS AND WOOD FAMILIES <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 BAFFOUR II AND ANOTHER <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] 2 GLR 193<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:
22 JULY 1974.<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">

U.V.
CAMPBELL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

J.A. DAWSON,
ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE SECOND DEFENDANT.<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>On 18
June 1974 I dismissed an objection raised by the second defendant’s counsel to
the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the plaintiffs’ action and reserved
my reasons which I now proceed to deliver.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The brief
facts of this case are that the plaintiffs’ family claiming to be owners of a
parcel of land commonly known as the Twifu Hemang estate issued out of this
court on 5 October 1973 a writ of summons against the defendants for the
following reliefs:<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">“(a)
Recovery of possession of all that piece or parcel of land known as Twifu
Hemang estate situate at Twifu Hemang in the Cape Coast District. <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">(b) An
account by first defendant of all rents, royalties, tributes, tolls and other
proceeds from the land between 1970 to date of determination in 1971 of his
caretakership and thereafter mesne profits from first and second defendants to
date of delivery up of possession. <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">(c)
Perpetual injunction against defendants restraining them from in any way
interfering with plaintiffs’ right onto and over the said estate. <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">(d)
Return by second defendant of plaintiffs’ title deeds to the land in dispute or
their value and damages for their detention.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The writ
was accompanied by an eleven-paragraphed statement of claim setting out the
plaintiffs’ claim in detail against each of the defendants.<o:p></o:p>Each of
the defendants entered an appearance and filed a statement of defence in answer
to the plaintiffs’ claim. The first defendant filed his own defence whilst that
of the second defendant was filed by the Attorney-General’s Department, Cape
Coast. After pleadings were closed a summons for directions was taken on 3
December 1973 and the case was set down for hearing on 21 May 1974. On that day
(21 May 1974), the case for the plaintiffs opened and cross-examination of the
plaintiffs’ first witness was adjourned for continuation on 18 June 1974.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 18
June 1974 after requests for an adjournment by counsel for the defendants had
been turned down, Mr. Dawson, assistant state attorney, who appeared for the
second defendant, raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the court. The
main content of his argument was that by an executive instrument, the State
Lands (Hemang—Lands Acquisition) Instrument, 1974 (E.I. 61) , made on 12 June
1974, the government acquired title to a large tract of land embracing the
disputed land under the State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125). Learned assistant
state attorney therefore contended that by section 4 of Act 125 the proper
forum for the determination of the rights of the parties was the lands
tribunal. He therefore submitted that this being the case the jurisdiction of
this court was ousted and that this c</main>