OWUSU AND OTHERS vs. AGYEI AND OTHERS [1991]DLSC2286

Date	1991-12-11
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1991]DLSC2286

FRANCOIS JSC

WUAKU JSC

OSEI-HWERE JSC

AIKINS JJSC

ADJABENG JA

ASUMADU SAKYI (WITH HIM KONADU) FOR THE APPELLANT.

NANA AKUFO-ADDO FOR THE SECOND DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

W A N ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE THIRD PARTY - CO-DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT

[1991]DLSC2286
																																						<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" >OWUSU
AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AGYEI
AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1991] 2
GLR 493<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 11 DECEMBER, 1991<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ASUMADU
SAKYI (WITH HIM KONADU) FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>NANA
AKUFO-ADDO FOR THE SECOND DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.<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">

W A N
ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE THIRD PARTY - CO-DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

FRANCOIS,
WUAKU, OSEI-HWERE AND AIKINS JJSC AND ADJABENG JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT
OF FRANCOIS JSC.<o:p></o:p>Sometime
in 1971, the Government of Ghana was minded to acquire two parcels of land at
Digya and Kogyae in the Kumawu Traditional Area, for the purpose of
establishing a national park and a game reserve. Acquisition processes were set
in train and the park and the reserve respectively were acquired on 20
September 1971, and subsequently established. But the modalities for the said acquisition
have not gone unquestioned, and the circumstances surrounding the lodgment of
claims and the payments thereon have neither passed without protest nor
criticism. The protest which took the form of a legal suit mounted by some
citizens of Kumawu, as the plaintiffs representing the Oman of Kumawu,
attempted to halt an illegality perpetrated by the chiefs and traditional title
holders of Kumawu in enriching themselves at the expense of the state. The
plaintiffs’ concern seems to have revolved round the illegality that made the
said chiefs beneficiaries in their personal right, of claims arising out of the
acquisition of the said lands, to the detriment of the oman itself. They
consequently urged the disgorgement of all payments made to the said chiefs;
and a refund of the said moneys to the stool’s coffers.<o:p></o:p>The
initial success of the plaintiffs in the High Court: see Owusu v Agyei [1980]
GLR 1 per Roger Korsah J suffered a reverse at the Court of Appeal. The
plaintiffs foundered mainly on the attack on their representative capacity and
the fundamental viability of the acquisition itself.<o:p></o:p>It seems
to me that the issues provoking serious debate are within a very small compass.
They relate firstly, to the validity of the acquisition, and secondly, to the
credentials of the plaintiffs, ie whether they possessed the requisite
representative capacity to sue. Lesser issues like fraud and illegality would
be discussed in the course of this judgment.<o:p></o:p>The
record of this appeal is contained in four massive tomes distinguished only by
extensively indifferent typescript and the prolixity of matter not essential to
the resolution of the dispute.<o:p></o:p>The first
inquiry is to ascertain whether there was a viable acquisition of Digya and
Kogyae lands. There is no doubt that the enabling legislation for a valid
acquisition was either under the Administration of Lands Act, 1962 (Act 123) or
the State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125). Since both could not be employed at the
same time, it is necessary to restate the essential provisions of these
enactments to ascertain the appropriateness of choice. Section 7 of Act 123 is
as follows:<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">“7. (1)
Where it appears to the President that it is in the public interest so to do he
may, by executive instrument, declare any Stool land to be vested in him in
trust and accordingly it shall be lawful for the President, on the publication
of the instrument, to execute any deed or do any act as trustee in respect of
the land specified in the instrument. <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) Any
moneys accruing as a result of any deed executed or act done by the President
under subsection (1) shall be paid into the appropriate account for the
purposes of this Act.”<o:p></o:p>(The
emphasis is mine.)<o:p></o:p>Section 1
(1) of Act 125 provides as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
“(1)
Whenever it appears to the President in the pu</main>