ABUSUAPANIN KWAKU ADU & 15 ORS vrs PHOON ENTERPRISE GROUP LIMITED & 4 ORS

BACKGROUND:

By way of background, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendant/Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the Appellants) stand aggrieved by a Judgment of the High Court, Kumasi delivered on 30th November 2020 in favour of all 16 Plaintiff/Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents).

In this customary land matter heard before the High Court, the 1st Respondent sued for a declaration of title to a parcel of land for and on behalf of the Asona Family of Atwima Brofoyedru in the capacity as head of family. The 2nd to 16th Respondents as successors-in-title of the 1st Respondent also sued for declaratory reliefs as to title as well as for a series of consequential reliefs arising out of the tort of trespass against the Appellants. In addition to a Defence filed countering the claim of the

Respondents, the 1st and 2nd Appellants also countersued the Respondents for a declaration of title to the said parcel of land as well as consequential reliefs in damages and trespass.

FACTS:

The brief facts according to the 1st Respondent are that his Asona family has owned the land ever since a customary gift was made to a maternal ancestor of theirs called Abena Agyaa by her husband Nana Kwakye Kofi I, the Akwamuhene two centuries ago, and that by virtue thereof, they more recently made valid alienations to the 2nd to 16th Respondents which the 1st to 4th Appellants violated by trespassing onto and destroying properties erected there which belonged to them. The Appellants on the other hand denied this, and 1st and 2nd Appellants rather counterclaimed against the Respondents for a declaration of title themselves. They based their counterclaim on their version of the facts, which is that they, and not the 2nd to 16th Respondents, obtained proper title and ownership to the land from its real owners who had the true capacity to alienate their interest in the land to them. According to them, this alienation of the land in their favour was made by the Awere Adwatia Stool (Akwamu Stool), - the sub-allodial owner - with the knowledge, participation, and agreement of the 1st Respondent and his family, who were entitled only to a portion of the consideration paid to the Adwatia Stool by the Appellants, by virtue of the inferior usufructuary customary interest they enjoy as caretakers in possession of the lands on behalf of the superior interest-holders. This contention immediately throws the nature of the 1st Respondents’ family’s interest over the