KWADWO vs. SONO [1985]DLCA934

Date	1985-02-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1985]DLCA934

FRANCOIS JA

MENSA BOISON JA

EDWARD WIREDU JA

TOTOE FOR THE DEFENDANT

AMOFA FOR THE PLAINTIFF

[1985]DLCA934
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

KWADWO <o:p></o:p>

{COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 1 GLR 7<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
27 FEBRUARY, 1984<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

TOTOE
FOR 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">

FRANCOIS, MENSA BOISON AND EDWARD WIREDU JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGEMENT OF MENSA BOISON JA.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal by the defendant at the court below against an award of ¢61,252
special damages for his destruction of cocoa trees and other crops on the
plaintiff’s farm. The damage occurred in 1977 in the course of the defendant’s
timber and logging operations on Dormaa stool land, over which the defendant
had concession rights. The trial took place at the High Court, Sunyani in March
1980 before Ampiah J. who dismissed the additional claims for general damages
for “capsid infestation, rehabilitation and other incidental damage as a result
of the defendant’s acts.” The plaintiff’s claim for an order of perpetual
injunction restraining the defendant from further felling on the plaintiff’s
farm was similarly dismissed. This part of the decision is not questioned. For
on authority where a person enters upon the land of another by lawful authority
or licence, acts done in pursuance of the authority or licence cannot be the
subject for general damages in trespass: see Gliksten (West Africa) Ltd v
Appiah [1967] GLR 447, CA.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Different
considerations, however, apply to the award of the compensation now appealed
against. Exhibit 1, the defendant’s concession agreement, was executed on 31
May 1965 and was obtained by virtue of the Concessions Act, 1962 (Act 124),
hereafter referred to as the Act. Both at the trial and in this court, the
rights conferred on the defendant by exhibit 1 and the exceptions in favour of
the local inhabitants were not disputed. In particular that exhibit 1 preserves
the customary rights and privileges of the local population to “hunt and snare
game, to gather fire-wood for domestic purposes only, to collect snails ... and
to till and cultivate farms and plantations on the demised land.” It is also
conceded that any farmer on the demised land whose crops suffer damage as a
result of the timber operations of the concessionaire is entitled to
compensation. Indeed, when the plaintiff complained of damage to his crops, the
defendant was ready to offer compensation, but for lack of agreement on the
figures. Consequently, upon the case coming before the court, a consent order
requesting the Regional Lands Department to inspect and assess the extent of
damage to the plaintiff ‘s crops was made at the start of the proceedings. The
plaintiff by counsel filed inspection instructions, and the parties attended on
the inspection team. In due course the Lands Department submitted its report,
exhibit A, to the trial court, to be followed by evidence from the senior
valuation officer, who led the inspection team. What is here relevant is that
the parties accepted and the trial court found that an area of 11.68 acres of
the plaintiff’s cocoa farm was damaged or destroyed involving a total of 5,067
cocoa trees. His evidence, however, that he valued the 5.067 trees at
¢7,351.70, a figure which had been approved by the Chief Lands Officer, Accra
became a bone of contention. In his judgment the learned trial judge rejected
the compensation rate of ¢1.50 per cocoa tree fixed in 1974 by the Chief Lands
Officer and which the witness had applied. The learned judge was of the opinion
that it was ridiculously low and that that rate did not reflect the economic
realities of the times. There was evidence from the witness that it was the
policy of the Chief Lands Officer to have compensation rates reviewed
periodically and to bring them in line with economic trends in the country.
That evidence was contained in exhibit X, the relevant paragraph of which
reads:<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">“(2) In
the past, compensation rates as used in the department were restricted to land
acquisition cases where the government acquired land and crops. From the basis
of calculation in arriving at the present (1974) rates it is clear that
prominence has been given to the estimated useful life of every crop in
question and this will necessarily imply a major change in the valuation
assessments in land acquisition cases where crops are also encountered and
compensation paid separately therefor.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Exhibit X
further adds in paragraphs (4) and (5):<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">“(4) I
shall be grateful if you give the matter your serious consideration and let me
have your comments without prejudice to the operations of the new rates with
effect from 1 March, 1974 ... (5) A review of the crop compensation rates in
respect of the undermentioned crops is still being undertaken and the finally
agreed rates will be communicated to you in due course ...”<o:p></o:p>