OBREMPONG SINTIM POKU III vs KWAME GYAMERA [2022]DLCA16069

Date	2022-06-01
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO: H1/22/2021
Citation No.	[2022]DLCA16069

SOWAH J. A. (PRESIDING)

OPPONG J. A.

MENSAH-HOMIAH J. A.

SIMON ANIMLE ESQ.

PHIDELIS OSEI DUAH ESQ.

[2022]DLCA16069
																																						<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" >OBREMPONG SINTIM POKU III<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KWAME
GYAMERA<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, KOFORIDUA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<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;">

CIVIL APPEAL NO: H1/22/2021&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 1ST JUNE 2022<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>SOWAH
J. A. (PRESIDING), OPPONG J. A., 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="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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>MENSAH-HOMIAH,
JA:<o:p></o:p>INTRODUCTION<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal against the judgment of the
High Court, Akim Oda, dated 15th October, 2020 wherein the trial
judge entered judgment in favour of Plaintiff for all the reliefs endorsed on
his amended writ of summons, namely, declaration of title to a parcel of land
at Suponso measuring about 100 acres, recovery of possession, damages for
trespass and perpetual injunction.<o:p></o:p>Legal issues which deserve attention in this
appeal include the operation of the principles of estoppel &amp; res judicata,
lack of capacity/locus standi and the effect of non-endorsement of a lawyer’s
practicing certificate number on a writ of summons.&nbsp; In this judgment, the designations of the
parties at the Court below would be maintained.<o:p></o:p>BACKGROUND <o:p></o:p>Plaintiff is the chief of Manso-Akyem and
also the Benkumhene of the Akyem Kotoku Traditional Area. By his amended writ
of Summons filed on 24th November 2017 pursuant to leave granted on
16th November 2017, and statement of claim filed on 6th
August, 2002, Plaintiff alleged that Suponso lands described on his writ belong
to the Manso Stool, having acquired same by occupation. It was the contention
of Plaintiff that these stool lands have been given to various subjects and
tenants for farming. However, there cannot be any disposition of the land
without the knowledge and consent of the Manso Chief and his elders. Yet,
Defendants carved out 100 acres of Suponso land and disposed of same to Oda
Sawmills without the consent of Plaintiff.&nbsp;
Plaintiff went on to plead that, per the judgment in Suit Number CS/10/1980,
titled Baffour Kofi Asiedu III v. Kwaku Akonnor &amp; Ors AND Nana Sintim Poku
II, the Defendants, their privies, representatives, agents and assigns etc.
are estopped from laying any claim to Suponso Lands.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>In defending the action, Defendants
essentially denied Plaintiff’s claim of ownership of Suponso Lands as well as
the plea of estoppel. They averred that, the issues in suit No. CS/10/1980 were
different from the issues in the present suit and so there is no relationship
between the two cases.&nbsp; Defendants
maintained that, they have been on this land ever since it was acquired by
their forebears, Amoa Panyin, Amoa Bediako and Amoa Mensah from their father,
Opanyin Appiateng and have given portions to tenant farmers. The Defendants
also contended that their maternal brother by name Kwaku Bamfo who was the
first Odikro of Suponso paid fifty pounds (£ 50) out of the purchase
price of one hundred and fifty pounds (£150) to their father, Appiateng.
According to Defendants, even though they are members of the Toa Royal family,
the disputed land is not stool property but private family property. Defendants
pleaded earlier litigations and judgments in respect of the same land, namely: (i) Nana Bamfo II v. MC Aboagye wherein the native Court ‘A’ found
that the land at Suponso was purchased by the predecessors of Nana Kofi Asiedu
and entered judgment in favour of Nana Bamfo; (ii) Suit No. 109/47 between
Nana Tenewaa &amp; 5 Ors. v. Nana Kwaku Bamfo II in which judgment was given
in favour of Nana Bamfo. According to Defendants, Nana Tenewaa &amp; the 5
other plaintiffs in suit No. 109/47 were the maternal descendants of the
instant Plaintiff and Nana Kwaku Bamfo was the great grand uncle of defendants
herein as well as a maternal descendant of Defendants in suit No. 109/47. It
was also the Defendants’ case that, by reason of Suit No. 109/47, Plaintiff
herein is estopped per res judicata from laying any claim to proprietary
interest in the land in dispute. <o:p></o:p>In response to Defendants’ assertions that
their relative Kofi Asiedu had been disposing of Suponso Lands without any
challenge, Plaintiff stated that, it was Mansohene Nana Kofi Duodu who put Kofi
Asiedu in charge of Suponso lands. And, Mansohene Nana Kwaku Bamfo later
appointed Yaw Sah as caretaker of Suponso lands.<o:p></o:p>