NANA ENUMIL KUMAH IV AND OTHERS vs. NANA APPIAH NTI II AND OTHERS [2013]DLCA3635

Date	2013-04-18
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/39/2012
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA3635

HONYENUGA JA PRESIDING

ADJEI JA

ACKAH -YENSU JA.

FRIMPONG BOADU ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS

SAGARI NOKOU ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2013]DLCA3635
																																						<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 ENUMIL
KUMAH IV AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA APPIAH
NTI II AND OTHERS<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">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO. H1/39/2012&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;DATE: 18TH
APRIL, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>FRIMPONG
BOADU ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS<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">

</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">

HONYENUGA, JA, PRESIDING, ADJEI, JA AND
ACKAH -YENSU, 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">

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

</div>HONYENUGA,J.A:<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal by the Plaintiffs/Appellants hereinafter called the Appellants
against the judgment of the High Court; Tarkwa dated the 13th day of
July, 2009 and the 20th day of April, 2010 respectively. The said
Court dismissed the action of the Appellants and entered judgment for the Defendants/Respondents
with no order as to costs. The Defendants/Respondents would hereinafter be
called the Respondents.<o:p></o:p>Before
I proceed, I must state that this appeal is a consolidated one with 4 suits
listed as Suit Numbers E1/10/08, E1/11/08, E1/12/08 and E1/13/08 involving the
same parties and the same subject matter which is land.<o:p></o:p>The
facts of this appeal are that the Appellants claiming to be the owners of the
land in dispute have exercised overt acts of ownership by cultivating permanent
crops thereon. The Appellants also claim that they have been in uninterrupted
possession for many years until the 1st to 3rd Respondents
demarcated the land and claimed it as theirs. The Respondents also claimed
ownership by giving part or parcel of the disputed land to the 4th and
5th Respondents who are in possession. The said Respondents also
gave out part of the land to illegal miners which seriously damaged their
farms. The Respondents also claimed that they have a judgment covering the
disputed land. As a last resort, the Appellants mounted the instant action
claiming:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Declaration of
title<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Damages for
trespass<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
General
damages.<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Perpetual
injunction against the Respondents.<o:p></o:p>The
Respondents caused appearance to be entered on their behalf. They also filed an
Amended Statement of Defence and pleaded a judgment in Suit No. 1/96 entitled: Nana Appiah Nti II Versus 1.Nana
Katakyer II of Bompieso and 2. Yaa Birago and that the judgment covers
the land in dispute. The Respondents also pleaded that the land in dispute is
theirs having been settled on by their grandfathers. A Reply was filed by the Appellants.
On the 16th day of December, 2008, an Application for Directions and
Additional Issues we</main>