ABOKO AND OTHERS v. MENSAH

JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Kumasi East Local Court which on the 26th February, 1962, found for the plaintiff in his claim to title and possession of a piece or parcel of land situate on Obenimase stool land at a place called Odenyinaa Ye De.

The evidence establishes that the plaintiff who is not a subject of the Obenimase stool got himself possessed of a large area of Obenimase stool land without any grant from the stool. On this land he made farms in a haphazard manner with the result that a considerable portion of the land which he appropriated to himself was not farmed upon and remained virgin forest. The plaintiff was at one time encountered by the co-defendant who is the present occupant of the Obenimase stool on the land. The plaintiff puts the date of this encounter as the 29th February, 1960. At that time, the plaintiff says, he had been farming for ten years. When the co-defendant met the plaintiff on the land, he did what was natural, that is took issue with him for farming on his land without his authority and restrained him from further entry onto the land.

It seems that the Obenimase stool is a sub-stool of the Juansa paramount stool. Accordingly, the co-defendant reported the plaintiff's conduct to the occupant of the Juansa paramount stool. He is Nana Kwame Afram. According to the plaintiff, the co-defendant complained that he (the plaintiff) had been farming in scattered patches and thereby [p.378] disabled other farmers from farming in the area. The plaintiff readily admitted his fault. The Juansahene then ruled that the area of the plaintiff 's farm be inspected and such farms as he made be released to him and thereafter he was to pay tribute. A team of inspectors was appointed and the evidence shows that this team inspected the area and submitted a report to the Juansahene. On a subsequent date, the Juansahene met the parties at a place called Bimma and a formal report of the inspection was made. It would seem that one of the objects of this meeting was to agree on the tribute with the plaintiff. This was however put off as the plaintiff said his father was not then present. The evidence shows that meantime, the co-defendant permitted the first defendant to cultivate some of the virgin forest land in the area which the plaintiff appropriated for himself. The first defendant did so by hired labour. The sequel to that is this action in which the plaintiff sought a "declaration of title of ownershi