KWABLA DZODANU, SETH LAVIE, PHILIP LARVIE, AMA MANSA AND DOE AKOGO vs. RUBBER PLANTATION LTD [2012]DLCA8630

KWABLA DZODANU, SETH LAVIE, PHILIP LARVIE, AMA MANSA AND DOE AKOGO vs. RUBBER P... [2012]DLCA8630

Date	2012-05-24
Suit No.	SUIT NO.H1/44/2012
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA8630

AKAMBA J.A. (PRESIDING)

APALOO J.A.

OFOE J.A

MR. S. ASANTE BEKOE FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

MR. JOHN KLU FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS

[2012]DLCA8630
																																						<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" >KWABLA
DZODANU, SETH LAVIE, PHILIP LARVIE, AMA MANSA AND DOE AKOGO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>RUBBER PLANTATION LTD<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO.H1/44/2012&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; &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: 24TH MAY,
2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
S. ASANTE BEKOE FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MR.
JOHN KLU FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

AKAMBA
J.A. (PRESIDING), APALOO J.A., OFOE J.A<o:p></o:p>

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

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>OFOE,J.A:<o:p></o:p>The
facts of this case are simple and substantially not in dispute. The defendant/ appellant
company (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) has acquired from the Divestiture
Implementation Committee lands for the cultivation of a rubber plantation. The
land was originally under the cultivation of the defunct State Farms
Corporation. There is a lease agreement, Exhibit A, dated the 12th
of March 1996 that mentioned that the land was now vested in the Stool of
Asamankese. It had become necessary to pay compensation to some of the settlers
on the said lands to enable the defendant carry out the rubber plantation
project. The lease agreement enjoined the defendant company to commence the
development of the site into a Rubber Plantation within 2 years after
concurrence is granted to the said lease by the Administrator of Stool Lands.
By paragraph 4b of the lease the defendant was to pay compensation at current
rates for all crops and buildings on the land to be affected by the rubber
plantation project. On payment of the compensation to the owners/ occupants the
lessor had the responsibility to cause the vacation of all occupants on the
land to enable the company develop the land. It would appear that
implementation of the lease agreement had not met the expectation of the
plaintiffs/ occupants of the land in respect of the compensation payment. They
therefore sued the defendant company at the Koforidua High Court claiming:<o:p></o:p>“(a)
An order of the court to the defendants to comply with the terms of &nbsp;&nbsp;their lease<o:p></o:p>(b)
An order of the court for the valuation of the farms to determine the
government rated value of the farms”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Whilst the plaintiffs claimed to be entitled
to compensation for any destruction caused to their farms, the defendant resisted
the payment, contending that compensation had already been paid earlier in the year
1987 to those entitled. To them the plaintiffs are licensees not entitled to
any compensation. From the date the plaintiffs went to court with the
defendants several things had happened concerning the compensation payments.
There had been meetings between the chiefs, the farmers and the defendant.
Court orders had been made for enumeration of the crops and the office of the Administrator
of Stool Lands had carried out the enumeration awaiting the decision of the court
whether the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation and how much. From the
records of appeal the first court order was made on the 25th
February 2005. On the 27th of April 2006 a repeat order for
enumeration was made by the trial court and &nbsp;an order injuncting the plaintiff</main>