ADJEI vs. GRUMAH [1982]DLCA2074

Date	1982-12-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1982]DLCA2074

JIAGGE JA

MENSA BOISON JA

ABBAN J.A.

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT.

[1982]DLCA2074
																																						<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" >ADJEI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>GRUMAH <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] GLR 985<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:
14 DECEMBER,
1982<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">

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE PLAINTIFF. <o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE 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">

JIAGGE, MENSA BOISON AND ABBAN JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF JIAGGE J.A.<o:p></o:p>Jiagge
J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. This appeal is from the judgment of
the High Court, Sunyani, allowing in favour of the defendant, an appeal against
the decision of the District Court, Grade II, Goaso. The plaintiff’s claim was
for general damages for trespass and specific damages for the crops destroyed
on the land in dispute.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff, a “stranger” at Mim, claimed that he rendered services as the
chairman of the Mim Town Board and that he married a wife from Mim. He applied
to the Mimhene for land to cultivate and after paying the customary fee of NC5
and a bottle of schnapps, he was granted virgin forest land on which he planted
cocoa and other crops. He alleged that the defendant entered his farm and
damaged 100 cocoa trees.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The defendant
denied the allegation and asserted that he purchased the virgin forest land for
N¢80 from the Mimhene and that he destroyed no crops because the area he
cultivated was virgin forest land. The Mimhene, giving evidence for the
defendant, admitted that he and his elders sold to the defendant virgin forest
land within the area granted earlier to the plaintiff. The Mimhene claimed that
he in 1967, ordered an inspection of the area granted to the plaintiff for
farming in 1951; that upon the report received, he and his elders decided to
re-enter and sell the virgin forest land which the plaintiff had failed to
cultivate to anyone requiring land for farming.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff for about twenty years after his acquisition was able to cultivate
only a small portion of the area granted to him. The Mimhene asserted that
according to the local custom the stool had the right to re-enter a stool land
that was not acquired by purchase, whenever there was failure to develop it
within a reasonable time after the land had been acquired. The Mimhene asserted
that the stool re-entered the virgin forest land appurtenant to the plaintiff’s
secondary forest on the ground that the plaintiff failed to reduce the land in
dispute to actual possession within the twenty years of the grant and that the
stool had the right of re-entry even for much shorter periods of default.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
district court accepted the evidence of the Mimhene but held that the court was
not satisfied that the right to re-enter on failure to cultivate was made known
to the plaintiff. He held: “I accordingly find that no condition of forfeiture
for non-development was attached to the grant of the land to the plaintiff” and
that “the Mim stool gave the land to the defendant without justification.” He
found that, “the plaintiff was in actual possession of the entire land granted
to him because his labourers were clearing portions of the land and actually
working on it . . . “The district court gave judgment in favour of the
plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
appeal, the High Court held that the district court having found that the area
in dispute was virgin forest land, erred in coming to the conclusion that there
was trespass. The High Court held also that the plaintiff was never in actual
possession of the virgin forest land and that he had no “physical control” over
the area in dispute. The appeal was allowed and the judgment of the district
court was set aside.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
grounds of appeal argued before this court were that (1) the judgment was
against the weight of the evidence and (2) that the judgment was bad in law.
Counsel for the plaintiff- appellant (hereafter called the plaintiff) argued
that before the re-entry, the plaintiff should have been called upon to show
cause why the uncultivated land should not be taken away from him and that in
spite of the local custom the plaintiff should have been heard. Counsel
conceded that one c</main>