NANA OKYEKU vs. RUBBER PLANTATION GHANA LTD. [2021]DLCA10844

Date	2021-05-05
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/01/2020
Citation No.	[2021]DLCA10844

CECILIA H SOWAH JA (PRESIDING)

ANTHONY OPPONG JA

ANGELINA MENSAH HOMIAH JA

S. H. OWUSU ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

SULEMAN MUSAH ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

[2021]DLCA10844
																																						<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 OKYEKU<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>RUBBER PLANTATION GHANA LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, KOFORIDUA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT NO. H1/01/2020 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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:5TH
MAY, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>S. H. OWUSU ESQ. FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SULEMAN MUSAH ESQ. FOR THE
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p>CECILIA H SOWAH JA (PRESIDING), ANTHONY
OPPONG JA, ANGELINA MENSAH HOMIAH JA<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;ANTHONY
OPPONG JA:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In June 2011, the Plaintiff/Respondent
(to be referred to hereafter as respondent) sued the Defendant/Appellant (to be
also referred to hereafter as Appellant) in the District Court, Akim Oda. The
reliefs the respondent sought from the District Court were:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Recovery
of possession of all that parcel of land situate lying and being at Topease
near Asamankese on Asamankese Stool <o:p></o:p>land
bounded by the Asamankese- Kade motor road, on one side by Nkodan stream, on
one side by the property of the defendants and on one side by Topease Methodist
primary and JHS school;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; General
damages of GH¢5,000 for trespass to plaintiff’s land herein”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The factual basis of the case of Respondent
by way of the pleadings has it that the land originally belonged to Asamankese
stool and same was acquired by Respondent’s grandfather in its virgin state for
farming purposes about hundred years ago. Respondent’s family broke the virgin
forest and cultivated cocoa and other foodstuff. About thirty years after the
family of Respondent through the grandfather had acquired the land, the then
Government through the then State Farms Corporation requested the land from the
chief of Asamankese for cultivation of cola and palm trees, whereupon Respondent’s
grandfather demarcated a portion of his acquired land to the State Farms
Corporation who at first cultivated cola trees and palm trees but later
cultivated rubber trees on the portion of the land granted to them. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In paragraph 9 of the statement of
claim in page 2 of the record of appeal, respondent pleaded that:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“about
3 weeks ago the Director of the Rubber Plantation (appellant) caused his workmen
to trespass on the plaintiff’s land in dispute herein on which the plaintiff
and his family have since (60) sixty years ago farmed thereon without any
interferences from the defendants or any person whatsoever.”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Respondent also pleaded limitation by
statute and conduct against appellant’s claim to the land.<o:p></o:p>The appellant essentially admitted the
case of plaintiff to the extent that Ghana Government in 1981 statutorily,
namely by the Lands and Concession Bulletin dated 30th April 1987,
acquired a large tract of land containing approximately 1,342,408 acres at
Topease, Asamankese with effect from 1st August 1981 and that
compensation was duly paid to all occupants of the affected lands. It was so
acquired for State Farms Corporation.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;However, under the divestiture project
by the Ghana Government, in 1990 the land was divested in favour of appellant.
According to appellant, by operation of law, the Government through the
Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC) caused the land to be re-granted to the
appellant and the said grant had been registered at the Lands Commission as No.
830/2000.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is instructive to observe that the
appellant admitted paragraph 9 of the respondent’s statement of claim stated
above in paragraph 12 of the statement of defence, contending however, that
they trespassed because they need the land for expansion of its plantation.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Regarding the allegation of estoppel
by statute and conduct, the appellant contended that since the respondent and
for that matter other farmers who were on the land were permitted to continue
their activities on the land as licensees, time did not run against the
Government and for that matter the appellant.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;After the trial of the case, the
learned trial magistrate in his judgment dated 5th August 2014 found
at page 72 of the record of appeal entered judgment in favour of respondent and
against the appellant.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<</main>