GHANA CONSOLIDATED DIAMONDS LTD vs. BOAHENE AND ANOTHER [1987]DLCA743

Date	1987-04-02
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1987]DLCA743

OSEI-HWERE JA

WUAKU JA

AMPIAH J.A.

JOE REINDORF (WITH HIM ADUAMAH OSEI) FOR THE DEFENDANT.

T. K. AGADZI (WITH HIM FRIMPONG BUADU AND AWUKU PEPRAH) FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

[1987]DLCA743
																																						<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" >GHANA CONSOLIDATED DIAMONDS LTD <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BOAHENE AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 1 GLR 87<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
2 APRIL 1987<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">

JOE REINDORF (WITH HIM ADUAMAH OSEI) FOR THE
DEFENDANT. <o:p></o:p>

T. K. AGADZI (WITH HIM FRIMPONG BUADU AND AWUKU
PEPRAH) FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

OSEI-HWERE, WUAKU AND AMPIAH JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to simply as the plaintiff) sued the
defendant-appellants-company (also referred to hereinafter simply as the
defendant-company) for:<o:p></o:p>“(a) . .
. recovery of possession of all that piece or parcel of land situate and being
at Akwatia (Yawaso fetish lands) and bounded on the north by S K Awuah’s
concession and on the south-west and west by Akwatia stool lands or otherwise
described as all that piece or parcel of land containing an approximate area of
23 acres situate at Akwatia and lying to the south of Aman Pumping Station and
to the West Akim Abuakwa District of the Eastern Region of the Republic
excluding the fetish, all residential buildings and sheds in the area which
piece or parcel of land the defendants have taken possession of without lawful
excuse. <o:p></o:p>(b)
¢200,000 damages for trespass. <o:p></o:p>(c)
Perpetual injunction against the defendants, their servants or agents.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 10
March 1978 the plaintiff’s grantor was joined in the action as the
co-plaintiff. Both filed a joint statement of claim which amended the original
writ of summons by claiming an additional relief, namely a declaration of title
to the disputed land and also for increased damages of ¢500,000.<o:p></o:p>By its
amended statement of defence, the defendant-company counterclaimed for:<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">“(i) A
declaration that the defendants have a valid concession in respect of the
disputed land. (ii) A perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff and/or the
co-plaintiff, their respective servants and agents from entering upon the land
in dispute and prospecting diamonds thereon or in any way interfering with
their quiet enjoyment of the defendants’ concession.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
parties joined issues on their pleadings and the case proceeded to trial with a
view to determining the issues involved, as agreed upon. On 23 September 1980
judgment was given for the plaintiff against the defendant-company for recovery
of possession of the land in dispute. The court made an order of perpetual
injunction against the defendant-company and awarded the plaintiff general
damages of ¢500,000. The court also declared title in the land in the
co-plaintiff and awarded a total of ¢ 10,000 costs against the
defendant-company. It is against this judgment that the defendant-company has
appealed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Many
grounds of appeal were filed and argued in this appeal. It appears to me
however that the most crucial is the one which alleges that:<o:p></o:p>“the
learned trial Judge erred in law in holding that the certificate of validity
(exhibit 2) specifically, expressly or in any other way excluded the fetish
land within the area granted the defendants under the lease (exhibit 1) from
the concession. The limitation, modification or condition imposed on the defendants
with respect to the fetish land by the certificate of validity did not, and
could not in law, divest them of the title of lessee to the fetish land lying
within the area granted them by the lease.” This ground too was argued together
with grounds (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</main>