F.K .A COMPANY LIMITED vs. EFFAH SARKODIE [2007]DLCA7016

Date	2007-03-16
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/181/2006
Citation No.	[2007]DLCA7016

FARKYE JA {PRESIDING}

TWENEBOA-KODUA JA

KANYOKE JA

FAUSTEL COFIE FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

MR. PETER M. BOAFO FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

[2007]DLCA7016
																																						<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" >F.K .A COMPANY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/ RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">EFFAH SARKODIE<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/
APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. H1/181/2006&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 16TH
MARCH, 2007<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>FAUSTEL
COFIE FOR THE PLAINTIFF/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">

MR. PETER M. BOAFO FOR THE
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

FARKYE JA {PRESIDING},TWENEBOA-KODUA
JA , KANYOKE JA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>TWENEBOA-KODUA,
JA<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff, as respondent herein, obtained judgment in the High court, Accra on
27 July 2005 against the defendant {as the appellant herein}, for reliefs as
follows: <o:p></o:p>"(a)
Declaration of title to the land in dispute. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(b) Recovery of possession.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(c) Perpetual injunction against the
defendant, his heirs, agents, privies etc., restraining them from interfering
with the plaintiff’s right use and enjoyment of the land. <o:p></o:p>(d)
Special damages of ¢65 million against the defendant for unlawfully demolishing
structures on the plaintiff's land. <o:p></o:p>(e)
¢20 million general damages against the defendant for his trespass unto the
plaintiff's land." <o:p></o:p>Additionally
the victorious respondent was awarded ¢20 million costs against the appellant. <o:p></o:p>The
appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment has appealed to this court on
two grounds, closely related, and has given a notice of further grounds to be
filed that have never come. The two kindred grounds are: "(1) The judgment
is against the weight of evidence and (ii) Having regard to the state of
pleadings and evidence during (the) trial, the Court erred in entering judgment
for the plaintiff."<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;At the background of the dispute between the
parties are the basic facts put out hereunder. The respondent, an estate
development Company, was put in possession of the land in dispute after its
formation. The disputed property had been acquired before then in 1980. The
lease for the acquisition was however executed on 16 May 1998 in favour of the
respondent. <o:p></o:p>Shortly
after the respondent had set off with its Estate development agenda, the
appellant appeared upon the scene with a large workforce and began activities
inconsistent with the respondent's possession. <o:p></o:p>The
appellant on his part claimed to have obtained the grant of two parcels of land
from the Amanfro Stool in 1993 and 1996 and a third parcel from the Weija Stool
in 2000. The grant from the Weija Stool was referred to as the "Open
Space"<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The appellant claimed as well to have been
granted a ten-plot tract by the Amanfro Stool in the name of his son, Bismarck
Effa Sarkofie.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It was an important part of the appellant's
case that the two Stools, namely, Weija and Amanfro, are a unity or one. The
Weija Stool by custom occupies a position higher than the Amanfro Stool and the
alienation of Amanfro land is subject to the ratification by the Weija Stool.
The custom is well-respected. <o:p></o:p>When
he obtained the grant of Amanfro land, the appellant had to be presented to the
Weija Stool in keeping with custom for the perfection of the said grant. The
appellant did swear to this in the court below, disclosing that he paid to the
Chief of Weija ¢12 million and gave one saloon car in addition to the cash
payment for the approval and confirmation. <o:p></o:p>This
appeal, we think, is set within a narrow compass or scope. It entirely turns on
the evidence put</main>