ROCKSON vs. AGADZI AND ANOTHER [1987]DLHC1205

Date	1987-04-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1987]DLHC1205

AMPIAH J.

[1987]DLHC1205
																																						<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" >ROCKSON <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>AGADZI AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1979] GLR 106<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 APRIL 1978<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">

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

AMPIAH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH J.<o:p></o:p>On 25
June 1976, the plaintiff instituted this action against the defendant claiming:
(a) A declaration of title to land at Abeka, Accra, and (b) An order of
injunction to restrain the defendant, her servants and agents from interfering
with the land in dispute.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 9 July
1976, the plaintiff instituted a similar action against the Attorney-General
(vide Land Suit No. 610/76). By the order of this court, dated 18 October 1976,
the Attorney-General was joined as a co-defendant to this action; on 7 December
1976, Land Suit No. 610/76 was struck out with liberty. On 1 March 1977, the
following issues were agreed upon and set down for trial: “(1) Whether the
plaintiff is the owner of the land in dispute, and (2) Whether the co-defendant
published and served on the plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of the
State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125), the relevant legislative instrument.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff’s case was that the land was granted to him as a gift in 1964 by the
Asere stool. He tendered in evidence exhibit A, a duly stamped and registered
conveyance evidencing the grant to him; the said grant was also concurred in by
the appropriate commissioner. According to the plaintiff, he took possession of
the land, placed pillars at the corners and fenced it. He engaged one Alpheus
Ayitey Addy, who had been involved in the acquisition of the land, to look
after the property for him. There was no interference with his enjoyment of the
property until the fence was broken down by one Dwomoh. He warned the said
Dwomoh and asked his counsel to write to him. That was between 1971 and 1972.
As soon as an action was taken against the said Dwomoh of Beno Enterprises, the
interference ceased. He was therefore advised to drop the action and he did so.
The present action, he said, was the second occasion on which his enjoyment has
been interfered with. He said the defendant had been known to him for some time
as a neighbour and that she had even in 1968 asked permission from him to use a
portion of his land as a playground for the children of her school—Anne’s
Preparatory School. In 1971 and 1972 the overseer of his land, Mr. Addy
informed him of the claim by the defendant. According to him, the defendant
claimed that a portion of his land had been leased to her by the government
which had acquired the whole area. Not satisfied with this claim, he inquired
from his land owners, the Asere stool, who refuted the claim by the defendant.
He then followed up his inquiries at the Lands Department where he was told
that the land had been acquired by the government in the public interest. He
asked why he had not been informed and he was told that the said acquisition
had been published in the Gazette. He denied knowledge of any such notice and
said that although he had been visiting his land regularly nobody had served
him with any notice of the alleged acquisition. He contended therefore that he
was still the owner of the land since the alleged acquisition was not legally
effective to deprive him of his ownership of the land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
support of his case the plaintiff called as his first witness, one Alpheus
Ayitey Addy, an estate agent. This witness testified that after having helped
the plaintiff to acquire the land in dispute, he was engaged by the plaintiff
to look after the land in dispute for him; he visited the land regularly. He
said up to the date he met the defendant on the land, he had not seen any notice
of acquisition affixed to the land. On the first occasion when he met the
defendant, he was shown a copy of a letter from the Ministry of Lands, and the
defendant told him that the land had been acquired by the government and that
that portion had been leased to her. He informed the plaintiff and accompanied
the plaintiff to the Lands Department where they were told the whole land had
been acquired for industrial purposes. He said that prior to this incident one
Dwomoh had trespassed on the land and that when the plaintiff had instituted
action against the said Dwomoh, the trespass ceased and Dwomoh left the land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
case, I do not think there is any real dispute as to the plaintiff’s prior
title to the land. The plaintiff’s land which, admittedly, was stool land,
acquired the character of private land when he acquired it in 1964 from the
stool. In the circumstances the land could only become state land by proper
acquisition under the State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125). The only issue, to my
mind, is therefore whether or not the plaintiff has been legally divested of
his ownership in the land.<o:p></o:p>