ABDUL MAJEED KAREEM v. MR. ASUMADU OF KUMASI
1999
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MRS. WOOD, JA (PRESIDING)
- BROBBEY, JA.
- ARYEETEY, JA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
1999
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around a land dispute at Kumasi-Boadi, Plot 6, Block ‘A’. Plaintiff/Respondent sought declaration of ownership, possession, damages for trespass, and injunction against Defendant/Appellant, who counter-claimed entitlement, injunction, and damages. Defendant/Appellant claimed a prior customary grant from stool elders for 6,000 cedis, evidenced by a receipt. Kumasi Circuit Court initially ruled against Defendant/Appellant. On appeal, the appellate court found the prior grant valid, emphasized the importance of customary law publicity, upheld Defendant/Appellant's entitlement, and awarded 100,000 cedis for trespass. Three key legal principles emerged: a prior oral customary grant trumps subsequent conveyances, sufficient publicity validates customary grants, and plaintiffs must prove title independently. Dissenting opinion supported trial court's decision.
JUDGMENT
ARYEETEY, J.A.
This is an appeal against the judgment of Kumasi Circuit Court dated 4th August, 1997 which went against the Defendant Appellant. The Plaintiff/Respondent's claim in the Court below was for
(a) A declaration that the said Abdul Kareem Kwabena Kareem is the owner lessee of all that piece or parcel of land more particularly described as Kumasi-Boadi, Plot 6, Block “A”.
(b) An order for recovery of possession.
(c) Damages for trespass.
(d) An order for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant herein, his agents, assigns, workers, successors-in-title and all other persons claiming any interest through or under him.
The Defendant/Appellant also counter-claimed as follows:
(a) A declaration that the Defendant is entitled to Plot 6, Block “A”, Kumasi-Boadi.
(b) Order of Injunction to restrain the Plaintiff by himself, servants or agents or otherwise from in any way interfering with the Defendant's occupation and use of Plot No. 6, Block “A”, Kumasi- Boadi or continuing any acts of trespass.
(c) Damages for trespass.
The facts which were not disputed before the trial Court were as follows: On 24th September, 1984 Nana Huahi Tutuwaa II succeeded her grandmother as Obaapanin of Boadi near Kumasi. Her predecessor Obaapanin Akosua Addae had abdicated on account of her old age. After her enstoolment, Nana Huahi Tutuwaa II (PW1) was shown the stool’s properties. It came to her notice that one of the stool’s properties, Plot No.6, Block A. Boadi had a building structure on it. Upon enquiry, it was revealed that the structure on the land had been put up by the Defendant/Appellant. PW1 therefore caused her solicitors to write to the Defendant inviting him to see PW1. The relevant portion of the letter dated 16th June, 1986 reads as follows:
“Our client informs us that you are in occupation of her land Plot No. 6, Block A, Boadi and you have developed the land without her consent.
By this letter, we wish to indicate to you that our client has instructed us to write that you are given a week from the date on receipt of this letter either to see our client or otherwise in absence of that, we shall issue writ of summons against you at High Court for declaration of title against you”.
That letter is marked Exhibit 2. The Defendant/Appellant explained that he was put in possession of the land after he had approached elders of the stool for land and after accredited representatives of the Queenmother Obaapanin Akosua Addae and Odikro Op