KOFI III vs. AKRASI II AND ANOTHER [1993]DLCA4909

Date	1993-05-21
Suit No.	1992 – 1993] 3 G B R 1012 – 1016 C.A
Citation No.	[1993]DLCA4909

ESSIEM JA

AMUAH JA

LUTTERODT JA

NO APPEARANCE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT.

[1993]DLCA4909
																																						<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" >KOFI III<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AKRASI II AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL]<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">

1992 – 1993] 3 G B R 1012 – 1016 C.A&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 21 MAY 1993<o:p></o:p>

APPEAL
FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT.<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 1.0pt 0in">

ESSIEM
JA, AMUAH JA, LUTTERODT JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>ESSIEM JA. <o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against a decision of Lamptey J in which the learned judge
dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's claim before the High Court. The reliefs
sought in the High Court were as follows:<o:p></o:p>“(1) Declaration that by adversely
claiming absolute title against the plaintiff to all that land near Akim
Adowsena commonly known and called Ajenjua (hereinafter referred to as the
Ajenjua land), the defendant, his agents servants and grantees have forfeited
the right to farm upon or otherwise occupy the said Ajenjua land or any portion
thereof.<o:p></o:p>(2) Recovery of possession of the said
Ajenjua land occupied by the defendant, his agents servants or grantees.”<o:p></o:p>The
parties filed their pleadings and the following issues were set down for
determination:<o:p></o:p>“(i) Whether the inhabitants of
Ajenjua were immigrants who obtained plaintiff's permission to settle on
Adowsena land.<o:p></o:p>(ii) Whether the inhabitants of
Ajenjua fled and their settlement consequently fell into ruins.<o:p></o:p>(iii) Whether the fact that defendant
does not owe political allegiance to the plaintiff is fatal to plaintiff's
claim.<o:p></o:p>(iv) Whether plaintiff's title as
owner of Ajenjua has been challenged by defendant on behalf of himself and
other descendants of the inhabitants of Ajenjua.”<o:p></o:p>At
the summons for directions stage, the court ordered as follows:<o:p></o:p>“In the circumstances, the issues set
forth in the summons for directions and any other issue which appears on the
pleadings will be those for the trial.”<o:p></o:p>Subsequent
to this, the co-defendant applied and was joined accordingly. Thereafter the
co-defendant filed a statement of defence to which the appellant filed a reply
and additional summons for directions were filed. The issues raised therein for
determination by the court were nine namely:<o:p></o:p>“(1) Whether Adowsena has been in
existence from time immemorial.<o:p></o:p>(2) Whether Adowsena was the place
Nana Frempong Manso settled the people of Obobetwao.<o:p></o:p>(3) Whether Obobetwao lands, including
Old Oda, were bought by Kwahim Buroni.<o:p></o:p>(4) Whether when the Kotoku crossed
the river Pra, they met the people of Ekuase, Afosu, Adjenua and Ntronang
rather than the people of Adowsena.<o:p></o:p>(5) Whether the plaintiff is estopped
per rem judicatam and by conduct from making the claim.<o:p></o:p>(6) Whether plaintiff’s predecessor,
Odikro Esiama went into exile because he lost the case of Kojo Opong v Attafua
and was allowed to return from exile after slaughtering 12 sheep to pacify the
paramount stool.<o:p></o:p>(7) Whether when Odikro Esiama
returned from exile the paramount stool agreed to demarcate a portion of
Obobetwao land to the said Odikro Esiama upon the express condition that it be
sold to defray his legal costs.<o:p></o:p>(8) Whether or not the Adjenua Odikro,
the defendant, was installed with the knowledge of plaintiff and whether the
plaintiff took aseda.<o:p></o:p>(9) Whether or not the plaintiff’s
conduct in instituting this action constitutes fraud on the co-defendant's
stool.”<o:p></o:p>By
the order of the High Court, the above issues were also set down for trial.
Thus, a total of thirteen issues had been set down for determination by the
court. Subsequently on 4 March 1976 the plaintiff started giving evidence
before the High Court. Hearing was adjourned to 31 March 1976.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff continued his evidence on 15 July 1976 and the case was adjourned to
21 October 1976. The plaintiff continued his evidence before the court presided
over by Lamptey J on 25 March 1977 and hearing was adjourned to 28 March 1977.
There is no record of what </main>