KWAKU JONAS vs. NANA KWAME NKRUMAH AND KWASI NUAMAH [2012]DLCA3615

Date	2012-12-20
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/08/2012
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA3615

MARFUL-SAU J.A. (PRESIDING)

ADJEI J.A

ACKAH-YENSU J.A.

MR. KWESI BLAY ESQ. FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/APPELLANT PRESENT

MR. KWAME OWUSU SEKYERE ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT PRESENT

[2012]DLCA3615
																																						<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" >KWAKU JONAS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA KWAME NKRUMAH AND KWASI NUAMAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL, CAPE
COAST]<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">

SUIT
NO. H1/08/2012&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: 20TH
DECEMBER, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. KWESI BLAY ESQ. FOR THE
1ST DEFENDANT/APPELLANT PRESENT<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.
KWAME OWUSU SEKYERE ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT PRESENT<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">

MARFUL-SAU,
J.A. (PRESIDING) ADJEI, J.A. AND ACKAH-YENSU, J.A.&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MARFUL-SAU,
JA:- <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In 1974 the plaintiff/respondent herein to be
referred to as the respondent was granted two different parcels of land by Nana
Kwesi Gyabeng, the then Chief of Bodi. The two lands which measured one local
mile each were located at Kofiano and Kankyeabo all part of Bodi stool land.
According to the respondent he paid the customary drink of ¢1, 000.00 (GH¢100)
for the two parcels of land to the chief of Bodi. He also paid a demarcation
fee of c5. The respondent then cultivated cocoa on the two lands and enjoyed
quite possession of the land. In 1979 the respondent gave the land at Kankyeabo
to one Godwin under an abunu tenancy. In that same year the first defendant/
appellant, herein to be referred to as first appellant, became the new chief of
Sefwi- Bodi. Later in 1996, the respondent divided the Kankyeabo land into two
between himself and Godwin and appointed a caretaker for his portion of the
cocoa farm.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In 1997, the first appellant
dissatisfied with the grant made to the respondent by his predecessor,
unilaterally took over the Kankyeabo land from the respondent with the
connivance of the second appellant, claiming that the two lands granted to the
respondent were not properly acquired. The record indicates that first
appellant from the takeover harvested the cocoa from the farm and kept the
proceeds to himself. Aggrieved by the conduct of the first appellant the
respondent took out a writ of summons against the appellants claiming the
following:-<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>‘’ i. A declaration of title,
ownership and recovery of possession of all that piece and parcel of land with
cocoa thereon situate and lying at a place called ‘’Kankyeabo’’ bounded by the
properties of Godwin, Prosper, Ama Bonsu and the Kankyeabo stream on Bodi Stool
Land.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;ii. Damages for trespass.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;iii. Accounts for the recovery of the proceeds
of the cocoa from the farm in dispute since 1997.<o:p></o:p>iv. Perpetual injunction restraining
the defendants, their servants, agents or workmen from interfering with the title
and possession and enjoyment of the farm in dispute.’’<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The appellants who initially filed
separate statements of defence through the same Solicitor opposed the claims of
the respondent. The appellants in the course of the proceedings sought leave and
filed a composite statement of defence and counterclaimed for the following:-<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>‘’a. A declaration that the
plaintiff acquisition of the lands situate at Kofiano and Kankyeabo is
unlawful. The land situate at Kofiano is bounded by the properties of Asuo Kofi,
a stream, Kofi Assuah, Kwadwo Dompie, Kwaku Amoako and Otuo&nbsp; wura. Land situate at Kankyeabo is bounded by
Godwin, Prosper and Ama Bonsu and Kankyeabo stream.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;b. Recovery of possession of the two lands<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;c. General damages for trespass<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;d. An order of accounts for and recovery of
the proceeds of both cocoa farms since 1974 and 1996 respectively.<o:p></o:p>e. An order of
perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff his servants, agents, workmen
and assigns from interfering with the 1st defendant’s stool title,
occupation and enjoyment thereof.’’<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the end of the trial the High
Court dismissed the counterclaim of the ap</main>