ATTA PANYIN AND ANOTHER vs. NANA ASANI II; ATTA PANYIN AND ANOTHER vs. ESSUMAN (CONSOLIDATED) [1976]DLCA1241

ATTA PANYIN AND ANOTHER vs. NANA ASANI II; ATTA PANYIN AND ANOTHER vs. ESSUMAN... [1976]DLCA1241

Date	1976-06-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLCA1241

AMISSAH JA

SOWAH JA

FRANCOIS J.A.

BRODIE MENDS FOR THE APPELLANTS.

J. MERCER FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1976]DLCA1241
																																						<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" >ATTA PANYIN AND ANOTHER vs. NANA ASANI II; ATTA PANYIN <o:p></o:p>AND <o:p></o:p>ANOTHER vs. ESSUMAN (CONSOLIDATED) <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1977] 1 GLR 83<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:
25 JUNE 1976<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">

BRODIE MENDS FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

J. MERCER 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">

AMISSAH, SOWAH AND FRANCOIS JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.A.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal against the decision of the late Charles Owusu J. sitting in the Cape
Coast High Court, in two actions which were consolidated for trial. The first
of these suits was filed in February 1963 by the plaintiff-respondent, Nana
Asani II, Ohene of Bedum, on behalf of his stool subjects against the
defendants-appellants, abusuapanyin Atta Panyin and Nana Amuakwa Boadu VI,
representing the stools of Ewumaso and Breman Asikuma, respectively. The respondent
sought an order of the court declaratory of his right to a quiet sojourn on the
appellants’ Adumegya or Bedum land upon payment of annual customary tribute. He
also sought a protective injunction to shield his subjects from the harassment
to which they had been subjected by the appellants. He pleaded that in an
earlier suit initiated by the appellants in 1958 in the Breman Asikuma Native
Court B (subsequently transferred to the Cape Coast High Court for trial) the
appellants had obtained a declaration of their title to Bedum land but failed
in their bid to restrain the respondent and his subjects from entering the
land. It was the respondent’s case that that earlier prayer for an injunction
sought against him was couched in such wide terms as to embrace not only his
people, servants, agents, tenants and workmen, but “all others claiming right
of access to the said piece or parcel of land derived from [him] the
defendant.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was
the respondent’s further case that, since that decision in 1961, the appellants
had refused to accept the yearly tribute offered but had embarked upon a course
of systematic harassment calculated to obtain a relief the court had
significantly denied them, namely, the ejectment of the respondent and his
people from the land. In the first of the consolidated suits therefore, the
respondent sought to challenge the appellants’ conduct and bring it to a halt.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellants agreed in the main with the averments pleaded by the respondent
which briefly recounted the history of the grant, the conditions attached
thereto, the genesis of the 1958 action, and its conclusion in 1961 with the
declaration of ownership in favour of the appellants and the refusal of the
court to grant an injunction or exact forfeiture against the respondent and his
subjects provided annual tributes were paid.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellants, however, controverted three specific matters. First, that the
original grant vested any power in the respondent to alienate land especially
to strangers without their consent. Second, that they had refused to accept
annual tributes, and third, that they had molested the respondent. In turn they
pleaded that the respondent in breach of his obligations under the grant had
placed tenants on the land and goaded them into denying their overlordship.
They contended that four of such tenants had been successfully sued in the High
Court, Cape Coast, but had truculently refused to attorn tenant. Relying on
these judgments the appellants counterclaimed for recovery of possession, an
order upon the respondent’s tenants to attorn to them, and an injunction
against the respondent and his people from setting foot in the area. In issue
for trial, consequently, were the matters above adverted to but more
particularly the effect of the 1961 judgment of Adumua-Bossman J. reported as
Atta Panyin v. Asani II [1961] G.L.R. 305.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
second of the consolidated suits filed on 23 February 1966 the appellants sued
one Kwame Essuman (hereinafter referred to as Essuman) a tenant of the
respondent. The claim derived its substance from the refusal of Essuman to
attorn tenant to the appellants in terms of an order contained in a judgment of
Charles J. of 1 December 1962. Essuman resisted this claim and denied the
Charles J. judgment any validity, relying on the derivative sub-title of the
respondent. The appellants replied that the 1961 judgment of Adumua-Bossman J.
(as he then was) estopped the respondent from litigating the issue.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>