NANA OTUO ANTWI BOASIAKO vs. NANA ADJEI PANIN [2023]DLSC15002

Date	2023-01-18
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/41/2021
Citation No.	[2023]DLSC15002

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

AMEGATCHER JSC

TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC

PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC

KULENDI JSC

YAW D. OPPONG ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.

MATTHEW APPIAH ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.

[2023]DLSC15002
																																						<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" >&nbsp;NANA
OTUO ANTWI BOASIAKO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p><a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>NANA ADJEI PANIN&nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT) <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<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;">

CIVIL APPEAL NO.
J4/41/2021&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;DATE: 18TH&nbsp;JANUARY 2023&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL <o:p></o:p>YAW D. OPPONG
ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:normal;tab-stops:82.3pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">MATTHEW APPIAH ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING), AMEGATCHER JSC, TORKORNOO (MRS.)
JSC, PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC, KULENDI JSC <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC:-<o:p></o:p>Introduction<o:p></o:p>In
1927, almost one hundred years ago, the ancestors of the parties to the appeal
herein met before the Native Tribunal of Kumasi in contest over the boundary
between the Abonu (also spelt Abono and Abornu in various parts of the record
of this suit) stool and the Deduako (also spelt Dediako) stool in the Ashanti
region. In that 1927 law suit, the progenitor of the
Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant in the appeal before us (hereafter referred to
as Plaintiff) was called Kofi Tumtuo and the progenitor of the current
Defendant/Appellant/Respondent (Defendant) was Kwame Adjaye. The current
parties have been in contest over the boundary between the Abonu stool and the
Deduako since 2007, eighty years after their earlier boundary dispute started. <o:p></o:p>History
of current suit<o:p></o:p>Plaintiff’s
claims<o:p></o:p>In
the writ issued on 25th April 2007, the plaintiff indorsed the
following claims<o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="1">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:150%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2;
 mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:ideograph-other">A declaration of title to and recovery of possession of all that
 piece or parcel of stool land known and called Abornu and bounded by the
 following town/villages Kuntunase, Deduako, Adwafo, Nyameani and Obo<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:150%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2;
 mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:ideograph-other">Damages for Trespass<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:150%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2;
 mso-hyphenate:none;text-autospace:ideograph-other">Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendant, his relatives
 agents/servants from having any dealings with the Abornu land<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>In
the accompanying statement of claim, plaintiff averred in paragraphs 3 and 4 that
his stool owned all that land bounded by the stool lands of Kuntanase (also
spelt Kuntenase in the records), Deduako, Adwafo Nyameani and Obo and that the
boundaries of Abonu and Deduako were marked by ‘Atta-ne Atta, Tetrefu
Obuokrukro, ntome, odum tree, paapa tree, onyina tree, ntome, a hill called
bipokoko, onyina tree and Nyameani stream’ (hereafter referred to as the
Atta ne Atta -Bipokoko- Nyameani boundary direction) <o:p></o:p>After
this, he went on to aver in paragraphs 9 to 11 that in the 1927 suit, the
boundaries between their stool lands as shown by defendant’s ancestor begun
from ‘Tetrefo Yineban stream, cemetery, onyina tree, Abankransu and Akatasu
junction, Abankransu source, bamboo plants and Kuman stream’ (hereafter
referred to as the Tetrefo-Yineban-Kuman boundary direction). It is these
features shown by the Deduako stool that were accepted by the Native Tribunal in
order for judgment to be given in favor of the defendant in 1927. <o:p></o:p>According
to plaintiff, since the 1927 judgment, the Abonu stool has remained on the
right side of the said Tetrefo-Yineban-Kuman boundary direction whilst the
Dediako stool has been on the left of these boundary features. Plaintiff went on
to contend that the defendant had without any justification, demarcated
portions of his stool land beyond the said boundary features to some farmers
without his knowledge. He contended that this conduct constitutes trespass,
leading to the indorsed claims. <o:p></o:p>