MANSU vs. ABBOYE AND ANOTHER [1982]DLSC2154

Date	1982-06-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1982]DLSC2154

FRANCOIS JA

COUSSEY JA

ABBAN J.A.

ATTA ERSKINE FOR THE APPELLANT.

J. K. POLLEY FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1982]DLSC2154
																																						<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" >MANSU <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ABBOYE AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 1313<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:
10 JUNE 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">

ATTA ERSKINE FOR THE APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

J. K. POLLEY 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 1.0pt 0in">

FRANCOIS, COUSSEY AND ABBAN JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.A.<o:p></o:p>By his
writ, the plaintiff-appellant, hereafter called the plaintiff, sought a
declaration of title to his family’s land at Yarbiw in the Western Region. He
pleaded that his ancestors had reduced the virgin forest into cultivation and
had been in uninterrupted occupation of it until the trespass complained of.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
half-hearted attempt at a traverse of the plaintiff’s claim was exposed in the
complete failure of the defence to challenge the plaintiff’s boundary
neighbours who testified in his support and who claimed to be still in
possession of their farms. The only witness for the defence dealt the
co-defendant a lethal blow when he asserted, “The plaintiff’s land is not
included in the land of the second defendant.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
co-defendant’s case was, however, that as the Odikro of Yarbiw, he was the
allodial owner of Yarbiw lands. He had also fought for the release of the lands
from the State Farms Corporation which had previously acquired them
compulsorily. The lands had reverted to him with the blessing of the town committee,
and therefore he had every authority to grant a licence to the defendant to tap
and uproot palm trees, perhaps in the better interest of husbandry and for the
good of the entire community. He, however, made no claim against the plaintiff
for breaches of customary tenure which would justify forfeiture, nor was he
attempting re-possession following abandonment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Indeed,
his was the novel proposition that a stool could estreat a subject’s land and
extinguish his possessory title, if land compulsorily acquired were later
released, or if the town committee decreed it.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When Mr.
Polley, who appeared for the defendants-respondents, hereafter called the
defendants, was called upon to support the judgment he found his task
intractable. For one thing, there was no clear evidence that the plaintiff’s
land had ever been compulsorily acquired. There were no documents
authenticating any acquisition, let alone a release to the odikro. What,
however, appears on the record is that the State Farms Corporation, successors
to the Agricultural Development Corporation, were once allowed to cultivate a
piece of Yarbiw land. It was, however, the unwarranted extension of this
unofficial grant that was realised by the Yarbiw populace. The evidence,
however, is that the plaintiff’s land never came under the cultivation of the
State Farms Corporation. Indeed after prevarication, the co-defendant had had
to admit:<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">“It is
not true that the land being claimed by the plaintiff is part of the vast land
not cleared by the State Farms Corporation. I now say the land being claimed by
the plaintiff is part of the vast land not cleared by the State Farms
Corporation.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Like
everyone else, the plaintiff had paid his contribution to the fund set up to
reimburse the odikro, as custom demanded. He had not failed in his obligations,
to warrant any forfeiture of his lands. The judgment denying him his claim was
a travesty. By one eclectic stroke the circuit judge was rejecting a hallowed
canon of customary law, that the stool subjects in possession can only be
dispossessed of their usufruct in land with their consent or on proven and
unrectified breaches of customary tenure, or upon abandonment: see Asseh v.
Anto [1961] G.L.R. 103, S.C.; Amoabimaa v. Okyir (Consolidated) [1965] G.L.R.
59, S.C.; Kotei v. Asare Stool [1961] G.L.R. 492, P.C.<o:p></o:p>