LAMPTEY ALIAS NKPA vs. FANYIE AND OTHERS [1989]DLSC631

Date	1989-05-16
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLSC631

SOWAH C.J.

ADADE JSC

FRANCOIS JSC

WUAKU J.S.C.

OSEI-HWERE J.A.

ATA FOR THE APPELLANT.

E. B. ODURO FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1989]DLSC631
																																						<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" >LAMPTEY ALIAS NKPA <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>FANYIE AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 2 GLR 286<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:
16
MAY 1989<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">

ATA FOR THE APPELLANT.<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">

SOWAH C.J., ADADE, FRANCOIS, WUAKU
JJ.S.C. AND<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADADE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Adade
J.S.C. (read the first judgment at the invitation of Sowah C.J.). The defendant
appellant is the owner of a large tract of forest land which he acquired by
purchase from the Andow stool, in the Central Region. It seems that he is not
the sole owner of the land. He lives on the land as a part-owner, and manages
it for and on behalf of himself and a syndicate. He gives out portions of this
land to tenants for farming on terms. The second plaintiff says that the
“defendant has about 300 grantees.” The three plaintiffs in this case are some
of his tenants. All three acknowledge the defendant as their landlord. Each has
planted cocoa on the portion he took. They claim that they took their
individual holdings from the defendant on abusa terms, i.e. that each was
entitled to two-thirds share of the proceeds from his farm, the defendant
taking the remaining one-third portion. The defendant, on the other hand says
that the proceeds were to be divided equally between him and each tenant—the
tenancies were abunu tenancies, not abusa tenancies.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they are abusa tenants. They are also
asking that the court should enjoin the defendant to give them documentary
titles of their holdings, spelling out the abusa terms.<o:p></o:p>At the
close of pleadings, the parties settled the issues for trial as follows:<o:p></o:p>[p.289]
of [1989-90] 1 GLR 286<o:p></o:p>“1.
Whether the land was granted to the plaintiffs on abunu system or on an abusa
system.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-indent:.5in;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">1.
Whether the parties have been sharing the proceeds on an abunu system or on an
abusa system. <o:p></o:p>2.
Whether the document to be prepared ought to be based on an abunu or on an
abusa tenancy. <o:p></o:p>3.
Whether [the plaintiffs are] entitled to [their] claim.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The High
Court, Cape Coast which heard the case in the first instance resolved all the
issues against the plaintiffs, and dismissed their claim. On appeal, the Court
of appeal reversed the decision. The defendant now comes to this court to say
that the High Court was right and that its decision should be restored.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant’s complaint against the Court of Appeal is summed up in his two main
grounds of appeal as follows:<o:p></o:p>“(a) It
was an error of law when the court held that one cannot contract out of customary
practice and usage in this case and that such a contract is unenforceable. <o:p></o:p>(b) The
court misdirected itself on the question of the burden of proof.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:</main>