NARTEY vs. MECHANICAL LLOYD ASSEMBLY PLANT LIMITED [1988]DLSC785

Date	1988-05-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLSC785

ADADE JSC

TAYLOR JSC

FRANCOIS JSC

WUAKU JSC

AMUA-SEKYI J.S.C

KWAMI TETTEH FOR THE APPELLANT.

NII ODOI ANNAN FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1988]DLSC785
																																						<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" >NARTEY <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>MECHANICAL LLOYD ASSEMBLY PLANT LIMITED <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA.]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 2 GLR 314<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
19 MAY 1988<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">

KWAMI TETTEH FOR THE APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

NII ODOI ANNAN 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 0in 0in">

ADADE, TAYLOR, FRANCOIS, WUAKU AND
AMUA-SEKYI JJ.S.C<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGEMENT OF ADADE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Edusei, Edward Wiredu and
Osei-Hwere JJ.A.) dated 31 July 1985: see Mechanical Lloyd Assembly Plant Ltd.
v. Nartey [1984-86] 1G.L.R. 412, CA wherein their lordships reversed a judgment
by the High Court, Accra (Hayfron J.) dated 16 October 1984.<o:p></o:p>In the
action the plaintiff claimed:<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">(a) a
declaration of title to a piece of land at Frafraha (at times described as
Fafraha) covering a total area of 9.12 acres;<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">(b)
¢250,000 damages for trespass;<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">(c) Recovery
of possession of the said land; and<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">(d) An
injunction to restrain the defendants, their servants or agents or both from
entering upon the said land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In 1976
the plaintiff-appellant (hereafter referred to simply as the plaintiff)
acquired a piece of farm land at Frafraha measuring 9.12 acres. The land was
demarcated for him, on the instructions of the Frafraha Mantse, Nii Okpoti, by
the family’s surveyor and Nii Okpoti’s son. The elders who had been informed
and were to have gone with the surveyor “did not get time to go.” The Mantse
however later informed them that the grant to the plaintiff had been made.
There is no evidence that anyone objected. The grant was initially a customary
one for which the plaintiff paid a fee of one bottle schnapps and ¢200 “as
custom demands.” It was later evidenced in writing. The document of title was
tendered in these proceedings as exhibit B. It is dated 15 April 1976 and was
executed by Nii Komey Okpoti and witnessed by A. Okpoti, described by the
plaintiff as a principal member of the Agbawe family. Shortly after the grant
the plaintiff took possession of the land. He erected his corner pillars,
weeded part of the land and planted mango and palm trees. He said he erected a
temporary structure and installed a farm labourer on the land. He fenced the
whole area with barbed wire and planted cassava, maize and okro. He connected
pipe-borne water to the site. He had apparently begun his farming in earnest.
He enjoyed the land peacefully in 1976 and 1977. The plaintiff did not set any
money value on any or all of the activities he carried out on the land, and
therefore it is not easy to assess their cost. The trial court, however,
believed that the plaintiff carried out all those works and activities. In any
case they were not seriously denied in evidence by the defendants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Some time
later, on a Saturday in June 1978, the plaintiff saw some strange workmen on
the land. They claimed to have been sent there by the defendants. He also saw
new corner pillars planted there by the defendants. He warned the workmen to
leave the land and reported their presence as well as that of the new pillars
to his grantor, the Frafraha Mantse. The latter sent his agents to remove the
pillars. The defendants persisted in their encroachment, claiming to have
purchased the land from the La Mantse, the fourth defendant witness. They sent
in their bulldozers to level out the land preparatory to commencing some
operations. In the process, they destroyed the plaintiff’s crops, his
structures and whatever he had on the land. Failing, after diverse endeavours
to get the defendants off the land, the plaintiff commenced this action. He won
in the trial court, lost in the Court of Appeal and has now appealed to this
court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Shortly
after the commencement of the action, the High Court, at the instance of the
plaintiff, restrained the defendants from continuing to work on the land
pending the determination of the suit. A</main>