BOI STOOL & 13 ORS vs. DANIEL ADDOQUAYE & 2 ORS [2023]DLSC16105

Date	2023-03-22
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/13/2020
Citation No.	[2023]DLSC16105

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

AMEGATCHER JSC

LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC

AMADU JSC

KULENDI JSC

PROSPER XORLA NYAHE ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANTS WITH HIM PORTIA AHIAWODOR & SOLA AKLAMATI

CLARENCE TAGOE ESQ. FOR THE 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS.

KWAME ACHEAMPONG BOATENG ESQ. 3RD DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT.

[2023]DLSC16105
																																						<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" >BOI
STOOL &amp; 13 ORS<o:p></o:p>

(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>

vs.<o:p></o:p>

<a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>DANIEL ADDOQUAYE &amp; 2 ORS<o:p></o:p>

(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>

[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/13/2020&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;DATE: 22ND MARCH
2023&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>

COUNSEL <o:p></o:p>

PROSPER
XORLA NYAHE ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/<o:p></o:p>

APPELLANTS
WITH HIM PORTIA AHIAWODOR &amp; SOLA AKLAMATI.<o:p></o:p>

CLARENCE
TAGOE ESQ. FOR THE 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

KWAME
ACHEAMPONG BOATENG ESQ. 3RD DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/<o:p></o:p>

</div>

CORAM<o:p></o:p>

DOTSE
JSC (PRESIDING), AMEGATCHER JSC, LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC, AMADU JSC, KULENDI
JSC&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>

&nbsp;

AMADU JSC:-<o:p></o:p>

INTRODUCTION<o:p></o:p>

(1)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
My Lords, on the 22nd day of March 2023, we
allowed this appeal by reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 26th
November, 2015 and restored the judgment of the High Court dated 8th
March 2011 “Subject to such modifications and variations as are contained in the
reasoned decision of this court….” We now proceed to give our reasons;<o:p></o:p>

(2)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
At the heart of this appeal, is an invitation to this
court to determine the scope and effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal
arising from a compensation claim from which the 3rd Defendant
family, (described as Co-Defendant)
the Numo Nmashie Family emerged victorious. The decision of the State Lands
Tribunal in favour of the Nana Adu Mireku Agyemang III by Abban J. (as he then was) was reversed in favour
of the Numo Nmashie Family of Teshie (3rdDefendant/Respondent
herein) by the Court of Appeal coram of Apaloo C.J, Boison J.A and Wiredu
J.A (as he then was). This appeal
therefore involves a review of the decisions of some of the most celebrated
jurists in our post-independence era, three of whom have been Chief Justices
and all of whom of blessed memory.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

(3)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The determination of the key issues in this appeal
therefore, will necessarily turn on our re-examination of the narrow issue of
compensation for the state acquisition of 25.031, acres for public purpose and
the eventual outcome of the decision of the Court of Appeal which had vested
ownership rights of seventy (70) villages and land falling within a far larger
area of about 72,000 acres which the Plaintiffs/Respondents/Appellants herein
in their action at the High Court have alleged to have been fraudulently
procured.<o:p></o:p>

(4)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Our determination of this appeal, and any orders to be
made therefrom, require great circumspection especially when the judgment which
is central to the appeal, that is, Civil
Appeal No.49/80 IN RE: ADJANCOTE
ACQUISITION; KLU VS. AGYEMANG III [1982-83]852 has subsisted in regulating
the ownership, rights and interests in land within the entire area affected for
more than three decades until the instant action commenced in the High Court on
25th June 2007.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>