THOMAS APPIAH ANSAH AND 1,391 OTHERS vs. NANA KATAKYIRE II, RAPID OIL GHANA LTD., SYMBOIL GHANA LTD. AND THE WESTERN REGIONAL LANDS COMMISSION [2012]DLCA8669

THOMAS APPIAH ANSAH AND 1,391 OTHERS vs. NANA KATAKYIRE II, RAPID OIL GHANA LTD... [2012]DLCA8669

Date	2012-01-11
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. HI/154/2011
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA8669

MARFUL-SAU J.A. (PRESIDING)

HONYENUGA J.A.

DENNIS ADJEI J.A.

[2012]DLCA8669
																																						<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" >THOMAS APPIAH
ANSAH AND 1,391 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" 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>NANA KATAKYIRE
II, RAPID OIL GHANA LTD., SYMBOIL GHANA LTD. AND THE WESTERN REGIONAL LANDS
COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>[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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO. HI/154/2011&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 11TH
JANUARY, 2012<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">

MARFUL-SAU
J.A. (PRESIDING), HONYENUGA J.A., DENNIS ADJEI 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>MARFUL-SAU, JA:- I
have had the opportunity of reading in advance the reasoned opinion of my able
brother Dennis Adjei, JA and I agree with his conclusions that the appeal be
allowed. I only wish to add my voice by addressing ground (i) of the grounds of
appeal formulated in the Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant. That ground
states as follows:-<o:p></o:p>‘’
(i) The plaintiffs have not identified the land(s) in respect of which they
sue.’’<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs/respondents herein, to be referred to as respondent, by their writ
of summons sought the following reliefs;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;‘’(i)The plaintiffs mostly cocoa farmers are
primary food crop farmers claim against the defendants a declaration from the
court that the land on which they are farming is family land other than stool
land.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp; (ii) An order from the court restraining the
1st defendant from alienating the subject-matter in dispute herein
to either the 2nd and or 3rd defendants.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp; (iii) An order declaring any lease agreement
made between the 1st defendant and the 2nd and or 3rd
defendant as null and void.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp; (iv) An order restraining the 4th
defendant from processing any document be it a lease or otherwise and purportedly
made between the 1st and 2nd defendants and or the 1st
and 3rd defendants under which the 1st defendant intends
to divert any interest in the subject-matter herein to those intending lessees.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp; (v) Perpetual injunction restraining the
defendants, their agents, servants, privies from interfering with the
plaintiffs possession of the subjects-matter in dispute herein.’’<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;From the endorsement on the writ, the
plaintiffs who numbered 1, 392 failed to identify their respective lands. The
plaintiffs only made reference to the subject –matter of the dispute. The
question however is, where is the subject-matter in dispute?; and what is the
extent of the land the subject- matter in dispute? The writ has no answers to
these questions. The 23 paragraph statement of claim of the plaintiffs also
failed to describe the land for which they sought to restrain the defendants
from dealing with same.<o:p></o:p>Learned
counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents have argued in his statement of case
that by the peculiar circumstance of the case it would have been difficult for
the respondents to have strictly identified their respective boundaries and
farmlands because they are scattered over a large area. This argument is
untenable and the reason assigned could not have exempted the respondents from
complying with the law. It is trite that in actions for declaration of title to
land before a court mindful of doing justice decrees an injunction the land
ought to be well defined and described, so the court could clearly ascertain
any breach of the injunction order and sanction the defaulters for contempt.<o:p></o:p>In
KWABENA v.ATUAHENE (1981) GLR 136, this very court adopted the position of the
law as stated in Anane v. Donkor (1965) GLR 188 at 192,S.C. In that case
Ollennu, JSC, as he then was, stated the law as follows:-<o:p></o:p><</main>