DARFOUR JNR. vs. BOATENG [1976]DLCA377

Date	1976-03-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLCA377

AMISSAH J.A

ARCHER J.A

KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.A.

AHENKORA FOR THE APPELLANT.

OFOSU-ASANTE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1976]DLCA377
																																						<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" >DARFOUR JNR. <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BOATENG<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 2 GLR 191<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
29 MARCH 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">

AHENKORA 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">

AMISSAH, ARCHER AND KINGSLEY-NYINAH
JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF KINGSLEY NYINAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>In about the
month of October 1964, the respondent to this present appeal visited a farm
which had customarily devolved upon him, following the deaths of his uncles
Kwabena Sarkodee and Kwaku Tawiah. He found some labourers working in the farm.
Upon inquiry, he learned that they were there at the express instance of the
appellant herein. He requested the labourers to inform their master that both they,
and he, had violated his ownership and possession of that farm by their
unauthorised and, therefore, unlawful entry and presence thereon. When, after a
second visit to that farm, he again met those labourers still on the farm,
working, the present respondent sought out the appellant in Nkawkaw, and
protested the violation. The appellant’s answer was that he was the rightful
owner, by purchase, of that farm.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
result, the present respondent (as the plaintiff) instituted proceedings
against the appellant herein (as the defendant) to settle the issue of title in
the local court at Anyinam, couching his claim in the following terms:<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
plaintiff being customary successor to the late Kwabena Sarkodee and the late
Kwaku Tawiah, all of New Jejeti, claims from the defendant declaration, title
and possession of all that piece or parcel of land with cocoa, trees and food
crops thereon situate lying and being at Train Kwang near New Jejeti which the
defendant had unlawfully trespass (sic.) to cultivate a farm.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>And for
good measure, the respondent threw in a further claim for £100 as damages for
that trespass. In issue, therefore as the pivotal matter for determination, was
the question: who was the better entitled, as the rightful owner, to hold,
possess, occupy and enjoy the land and the farms thereon, situate, lying and
being at New Jejeti: the respondent or the present appellant?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By the
very nature of his writ and claim, the respondent at once assumed the legal
obligation of leading such reasonably probable evidence, before the trial
court, as would establish for him a better, more superior title, than the
present appellant had and, thereby, defeat and exclude whatever pretentions to
title, possession, or ownership that the said appellant entertained in the
disputed parcel of land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is a
well-established tenet of the law, as enunciated in Kponuglo v. Kodadja (1933)
2 W.A.C.A. 24, P.C. that to succeed on a claim for title and possession, it is
incumbent upon the party suing therefore to show, not only that he was the true
owner of the portion of land he makes the subject-matter of his action; but
also, and equally important, he must, in addition, demonstrate that both
before, and then at, the time he instituted proceedings against his opponent,
the exclusive possession of the parcel of land in dispute had been, and was, in
fact, vested first, in his predecessors-in-title and then, laterly, in himself.
Upon him rests, squarely, therefore, the responsibility of satisfying the trial
court that he was in actual possession of that parcel of land when his rights
and his interests in the said area were violated to trigger off the action.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>