BAFFOUR AWUAH & OTHERS vs. NANA DAMOAH – AGYEMANG. [2013]DLCA3178

Date	2013-03-22
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/27/2013
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA3178

JUSTICE AYEBI JA [PRESIDING]

JUSTICE IRENE C DANQUAH JA

JUSTICE ALHAJI TANKO AMADU JA

NANA OBIRI BOAHENE WITH FREMPONG BOAMAH FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT.

KWAKU BOAMAH FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT.

[2013]DLCA3178
																																						<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" >BAFFOUR AWUAH &amp;
OTHERS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA DAMOAH – AGYEMANG.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO. H1/27/2013&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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 MARCH, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>NANA OBIRI BOAHENE WITH
FREMPONG BOAMAH FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT.<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">

KWAKU
BOAMAH FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT.<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">

JUSTICE
AYEBI JA [PRESIDING]
,JUSTICE IRENE C DANQUAH JA, &nbsp;JUSTICE
ALHAJI&nbsp; TANKO AMADU 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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>TANKO
AMADU J.A.<o:p></o:p><h1 style="line-height:115%">1. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This
appeal is from the ruling of the High Court Sunyani dated 26th April
 2012. A summary of the facts of this case
are that; by writ issued on behalf of the Plaintiff/Applicant/ Respondent
(hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) he claims against all the
Defendants/ Respondents/Appellants &nbsp; (hereinafter
referred to as Appellants) the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></h1>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “(a).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Declaration of title and recovery of
possession of all that piece and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; parcel
of land, lying situate and being at “NKRAN” on Abesim Stool La and which said
land shares boundary with the properties of Agya Ofori, Opanin Kofi Baah, Yaw
Moses, Op. Kwasi Adomah, Op. Yaw Nyame Op. Kwasi Peprah, Madam Kesewaa Kwadwo
Kumi, Akosua Addai, Adwoa Nyanka, Attaa Akosua.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (b).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order of the Honourable Court to
compel the Defendants to render accounts to the Plaintiff in respect of
Plaintiff’s family plots/lands they (Defendants) have sold.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (c).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; General Damages for trespass <o:p></o:p>(d). &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order of perpetual injunction
restraining the Defendants, their &nbsp;&nbsp; agents
servants, assigns, privies etc from dealing in anyway &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; whatsoever with the disputed land”.<o:p></o:p>2. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
writ is accompanied by a Statement of Claim which has set out the capacity in
which the Plaintiff sues and generally provide a factual account of the
Plaintiff’s interest in the land dating as far back as the lifetime of
Plaintiff’s grandfather Nana Kofi Awuah who acquired the land for Cocoa
cultivation.<o:p></o:p>3. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
Defendants (Appellants herein) entered appearance to the writ and thereafter
delivered a defence in which the claim to the land by the Plaintiff’s
Ahenbronoso family has been denied. It was further averred by the Defendants
that, it was Opanin Kofi Kumah who succeeded the estate of the said Nana Kofi
Awuah about three decades ago and that the said Opanin Kofi Kumah never
interfered with the Defendants’ occupation and possession of the land in
dispute. Further the Defendants have averred that they have been in effective
occupation of the subject matter since the 1960’s and had cultivated food crops
on the land on which they depend for livelihood. The Defendants as a statutory
defence have pleaded limitation in that the action is not only statute barred
but it is caught up by the doctrine of laches. This defence was filed on
12/4/2012. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Without traversing the various
defences and claims of prior possession for more than 30 years and in
particular the allegation that the action is statute barred and affected by
laches by way of reply, the Plaintiff (Respondent herein) on the 13/4/2012 filed
a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction formulated as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the Defendants, their
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; agents, assigns, etc
from dealing with the </main>