NANA ADDAI OWUSU vs. NANA AFARI BOAGYAN II AND OSEI BONSU ROYAL MICHAEL [2021]DLHC10822

Date	2021-03-10
Suit No.	SUIT NO. HI/07/2020
Citation No.	[2021]DLHC10822

CECILIA SOWAH J.A. (PRESIDING)

ANTHONY OPPONG J.A.

ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH J.A.

SULEMAN MUSAH FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

JOSEPH KWAKU GYIMAH FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENT

[2021]DLHC10822
																																						<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 ADDAI OWUSU<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA AFARI BOAGYAN II AND OSEI BONSU ROYAL
MICHAEL<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL,
KOFORIDUAH]<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. HI/07/2020 &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;DATE:
17TH MARCH, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>SULEMAN MUSAH FOR
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT<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;">

JOSEPH
KWAKU GYIMAH FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>CECILIA SOWAH
J.A. (PRESIDING), ANTHONY OPPONG J.A., ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH J.A.<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;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;On
or about 3rd April, 2013, the plaintiff/appellant, to be simply
called appellant for purposes of this judgment, caused a writ of summons to
issue against defendants/respondents who shall also for purposes of this
judgment be simply called respondents.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;By way of reliefs, the appellant sought
declaration of title and recovery of possession of all that building plot No
(1) situate at Amanfrom-Nkawkaw, damages for trespass and an injunction against
the respondents. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
respondents traversed the claim of appellant and joined issues with him. After
the trial of the case by the High Court, Nkawkaw, appellant’s case was
dismissed, hence this appeal which is expressive of appellant’s dissatisfaction
of the judgment dismissing his claim.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;For
now it may be apposite to attempt a summary of the facts of the case. The
appellant acquired the disputed land from the then chief of Obo called Nana
Asiamah in 1983. After the land had been demarcated to appellant by elders of
Kwaman upon the instructions of the chief of Obo, Nana Asiamah, appellant
provided good consideration for the land. Receipts and documents evidencing the
payment for the land and the acquisition of the land were issued to appellant
by the chief of Obo. Appellant, who was then a practicing fetish priest took
possession and practiced his ‘profession’ on the land. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Ostensibly,
appellant put up structures on the land for the practice of the profession
whereby he housed the sick who had come to his fetish shrine for cure and
healing. He also housed his servants and his gods. He even put up a structure
where he kept his pigs. He claimed he kept all the documents on the land in the
room where the gods were kept. He apparently, in addition, carried out other
various overt acts of possession and ownership of the land for so many years
without any interference from anyone.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Some
years after, appellant stopped the practice of fetishism and lost most of his
documents covering the land he acquired. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Sometime
later, he was confronted by the chief of Nkawkaw who requested to see the
documents covering the land the appellant was occupying, amidst threat of
recovering the land from appellant in his capacity as the custodian of the land
for and on behalf of Obomeng stool. As a result of the appellant’s failure to
trace the documents relating to the land, he was constrained to re-purchase the
land from the chief of Nkawkaw, Nana Yaw Frimpong to avoid any litigation over
the land with him. Consequent upon the second acquisition, so to speak, a new
site plan was made and an indenture was executed by the chief of Obomeng, after
the chief of Nkawkaw had accounted for the sale of the land to the chief of
Obomeng.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This
would have been expected to bring unimpeachable security to the appellant’s
acquisition of the land but what happened soon after plunged him to the
litigation herein. The appellant was in Kumasi when word got to him that the
respondents were constructing a long wall through the land. The appellant
complained to Police and the 1st respondent’s linguist was arrested.
In trying to resolve the problem, the police and the parties to the land went
to the land for inspection and in the presence of all, the appellant confirmed
his acquisition of the land from the two chiefs. The reaction of 1st
respondent which centered on his offer of another land to 2nd
respondent settled the matter.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;However, after some time, contrary to the
assurance 1st respondent gave at the meeting on the land, 2nd
respondent was allocated a portion of the appellant’s land by 1st
respondent and 2nd respondent proceeded to grade a large portion of
the land on the authority of 1st respondent and the feud that ensued
culminated in the institution of the instant action.<o:p></o:p>