IN RE ADJANCOTE ACQUISITION; KLU vs. AGYEMANG II [1982]DLCA2134

Date	1982-12-15
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1982]DLCA2134

APALOO C.J.

MENSA BOISON JA

EDWARD WIREDU J.A

TAGOE (WITH HIM CHINNERY) FOR THE APPELLANT.

OHENE-AMPOFO FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1982]DLCA2134
																																						<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" >IN RE ADJANCOTE ACQUISITION; KLU<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>AGYEMANG II <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 852<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:
15 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">

TAGOE (WITH HIM CHINNERY) FOR THE APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

OHENE-AMPOFO FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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 1.0pt 0in">

APALOO C.J., MENSA BOISON AND EDWARD WIREDU
JJ.A<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF WIREDU J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
dispute in this case is about title to a piece of land described by the name
Adjancote. This land was acquired some time ago by the Government of Ghana for
the purpose of building a television station for the Ghana Broadcasting
Corporation.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
present appeal before us is the result of the determination by the lands
tribunal of rival claims for monetary compensation arising out of the said
acquisition submitted to the government by three claimants each claiming to own
the acquired area.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The lands
tribunal in its judgment dated 26 February 1976, expressed satisfaction with
the case presented by and on behalf of the first claimant and found for him,
rejecting the cases of the second and third claimants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The three
claimants before the lands tribunal were the Berekusu stool as the first
claimant; the Nuumo Nmashi family of Teshie comprising the Krobo, Klu and the
Agbawe quarters as the second claimant, and the Nii Dowuona family of Osu as
the third claimant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Both the
second and third claimants appealed from the judgment in favour of the first
claimant but the third claimant failed to prosecute his appeal having withdrawn
his application for variation of the judgment.<o:p></o:p>For the
purpose of easy identification, the two parties to this appeal would simply be
referred to as the respondent (the first claimant) and the appellant (the
second claimant).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>One main
ground of appeal was originally filed by the appellant who expressed an
intention to file additional grounds later. This ground reads: “(a) The
judgment is against the weight of evidence.” Later two additional grounds of
appeal were filed on his behalf. These read:<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">“(1) the
trial court erred in preferring the traditional evidence of the first claimant
to the traditional evidence of the second claimant without assigning reasons
therefor. (2) The trial court erred in finding that ‘despite all these tribal
wars, the first claimant’s ancestors held tenaciously to the top of the hill’
without regard to facts in recent years as established by the evidence.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It must
be mentioned in passing that when the appeal first came before us an objection
was taken on behalf of the respondent affecting its propriety but we became
satisfied that the appeal was properly before this court after hearing learned
counsel for the appellant on the objection. We therefore acceded to an
application for leave by learned counsel for the respondent to withdraw the
objection. Arguments before us by learned counsel for the appellant were based
on the two additional grounds filed.<o:p></o:p>