NANA ADJEI PANIN vs. NANA ANTWI BOSIAKO [2011]DLCA3169

Date	2011-12-22
Suit No.	CASE NO: H1/46/2011
Citation No.	[2011]DLCA3169

IRENE C. DANQUAH

MARIAMA OWUSU

FRANCIS G. KORBIEH

H.K. KODUAH ESQR. FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

F.K. BUOR ESQR. FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT.

[2011]DLCA3169
																																						<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" >NANA ADJEI PANIN<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA ANTWI BOSIAKO<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<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">

CASE
NO: H1/46/2011&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE:22ND DECEMBER, 2011<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>IRENE
C DANQUAH JA<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal filed by
the Defendant against the decision of the High Court Kumasi dated 11th
May 2010.&nbsp; The Plaintiff who is the
occupant of the Abonu Stool commenced the suit against the Defendant who is the
Odikro of Deduako claiming the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A
declaration of title to and recovery of possession of all that piece or parcel
of stool land known and called ABONU and bounded by the town/village Kuntanase,
Deduako, Aduafo, Nyameani and Obo.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Damages
for trespass.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Perpetual
injunction restraining the Defendant, his relatives and agents from having any
dealings with the Abonu land.<o:p></o:p>In the Statement of Claim,
the Plaintiff averred that in 1927, there was a boundary dispute between the
Plaintiff Stool and the Deduako Stool in a suit entitled KOFI TUMTUO&nbsp; vrs KWAME ADJAYE.&nbsp; In that suit, there was an inspection of the
land and both parties were given opportunity to show their boundary marks.&nbsp; The Plaintiff averred further that the
Defendant in the 1927 suit whose boundary features were accepted by the Court
showed the following:&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>Tetrefo, Yiniban stream,
cemetery, Onyina tree, Abankransu and Akatasu junction, Abankransu source,
Bomboo plants and Kuman stream.&nbsp; At the
end of the case, the features shown by the Deduako Stool were accepted by the
Tribunal and judgment was given in their favour.&nbsp; Since the said judgment, the Abonu Stool has
remained on the right side of the said boundary features whilst the Deduako
stool has been on the left.&nbsp;&nbsp; The
Plaintiff contended that without any justification the Defendant has demarcated
portions of the land belonging to the Stool of the Plaintiff lying beyond the
boundary features to some farmers without Plaintiffs knowledge.&nbsp; Hence the issuance of the writ.<o:p></o:p>The Defendant entered
appearance and followed it with a statement of defence and counterclaimed for
the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Declaration
that by the judgments of the 1st Tribunal and the Appellate
tribunal, the Defendant is entitled to the ownership of the Stool land
described in paragraph 10 of the Statement of Defence.<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Damages
for trespass.<o:p></o:p>c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Perpetual
injunction.<o:p></o:p>In the Statement of
Defence, the Defendant denied that in the 1927 suit it showed the boundary
features that the Plaintiff averred were accepted by the Court but admitted
judgment was given in favour of Deduako Stool.&nbsp;
The Defendant averred that the Plaintiff lost on appeal against the 1927
case. The Defendant admitted that his Stool land lies on the left side as one
commences from Atta ne Atta stream whilst Plaintiff’s land lies to the right
side.<o:p><</main>