MATTHEW OWUSU vs. ADWOA NKRUMAH & ANOTHER [2015]DLHC3551

Date	2015-03-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO.RPC/77/13
Citation No.	[2015]DLHC3551

HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

AKWASI ARHIN FOR PLAINTIFF PRESENT

RICHARD ABABIO FOR DEFENDANT

[2015]DLHC3551
																																						<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" >MATTHEW OWUSU<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ADWOA NKRUMAH &amp;
ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), 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">

SUIT NO.RPC/77/13&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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 MARCH, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>AKWASI ARHIN FOR PLAINTIFF
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">

HER
LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<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">

</div>The Plaintiff commenced the instant action in his capacity as the
Head of family of the immediate (maternal) family of the defendants, for and
behalf of the principal elders of the family. By the endorsement on his amended
writ of summons filed on 13/02/2014, he claimed 1/3 of the sum of GH¢40,000 and 1/3 of the sum of GH<span style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;">¢20,000.00 paid to the Defendants for the disturbance of surface
rights in respect of family land occupied by the Defendants.<o:p></o:p>The Plaintiff’s case as contained in the amended statement of
claim is that the land in issue formed part of land which devolved according to
customary law to the parties’ maternal family following the death of one Opanin
Kwaku Bonsu who originally cultivated the land. The land has been under the
control of various heads of family. A decision was taken at a family meeting to
the effect that family members in actual occupation will receive 2/3 of any
compensation paid in respect of the land whilst 1/3 of the compensation will be
paid to the family coffers. &nbsp;It is the Plaintiff’s case that a small scale
mining firm with a Minerals Prospecting license paid compensation to the
Defendants for the disturbance of surface rights and crops. &nbsp;According to
the Plaintiff, other family members who received compensation duly paid 1/3 to
the family except the Defendants herein.<o:p></o:p>The Defendant’s version of the story is that they did not receive
any compensation for the disturbance of surface rights but they were
compensated for the destruction of their tree crops.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The defendants alleged that the Plaintiff is head of family but
not as a result of consanguinity. He was brought into the family by his mother Akosua
Nyarko, who came to live with the Defendants’ great grandmother, Fosua
(deceased). He was made head of family when there was no male adult in the
family and family cocoa farms were entrusted to him. These cocoa farms formed
part of a larger piece of land which two children of Fosua, namely Akua Adehye
and Opanin Kwaku Bonsu (both deceased), reduced into cultivation as part of
Yawkrom stool lands. When Opanin Kwaku Bonsu passed on, Akua Adehye (deceased)
remained in effective cultivation. The Defendants are descendants of Akua
Adehye through her daughter, Yaa Pokua. They denied the Plaintiff’s story that
he permitted them to farm on the land because it was their mother, Yaa Pokuaa,
who in her life time allowed them to reduce portions of the land into cultivation.
Hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the family. It is also
their case that the Plaintiff is estopped by collateral estoppel as the same
matter had been arbitrated upon before the Manso Nwanta Traditional Council and
Plaintiff lost.<o:p></o:p>By way of Reply, the Plaintiff admitted that the land in issue was
originally cultivated by Akua Adheye and Opanin Kwaku Bonsu (both deceased) and
that he is in control of the land by virtue of his position as head of family.
Further, the Plaintiff stated that there has not been any arbitration in
respect of the land in dispute before the Manso Nkwanta Traditional Council.
Instead, he summoned the 1st Defendant in respect of an earlier
concession she sold. The 1st Defendant put up a defence that she sold
the land to take care of her sick child so the Plaintiff allowed her to keep
the money.<o:p></o:p>Four issues were set down for trial, namely: