ADJEI v. ACQUAH AND OTHERS
January 21, 1991
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ADADE A.G. C.J.
- OSEI-HWERE
- AIKINS
- EDWARD WIREDU JJ.S.C.
- AMUAH J.A
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
January 21, 1991
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court case concerns Apakye land near Ekurabadze in the Anomabu Traditional Area. Abusuapanyin Kwaku Adjei, head of the Kona family of Egyaa No. 1, sued Nana Okuntu Ababio II and others for a declaration of title, damages for trespass, and an injunction. The High Court (Wuaku J.) declared the Kona family owner and granted a perpetual injunction but denied trespass damages. The Court of Appeal reversed, preferring the defendants’ traditional narrative and rejecting the plaintiff’s. On further appeal, Justice Aikins J.S.C., writing the lead judgment, and Justice Edward Wiredu J.S.C., concurring, held that title could be established by recent acts—possession, acts of ownership, and clear boundary identification by independent adjoining owners—even where traditional histories conflict. The Court emphasized that defendants’ admissions of the plaintiff’s possession shifted the burden to prove permission and that appellate courts should not disturb trial findings absent unsound conclusions. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Court of Appeal’s decision.
JUDGMENT OF AIKINS J.S.C.
The plaintiff in this case, a head of the Kona family of Egyaa No. 1 near Anomabu, claimed against the defendants for a declaration of title to a parcel of land called "Apakye" near Ekurabadze, damages for trespass and an injunction. He obtained judgment at the trial court, but this judgment was set aside by the Court of Appeal. Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal the plaintiff has now appealed to this court.
Two grounds of appeal were filed, namely:
(a) By the accomplished or established facts the plaintiff’s version of the traditional history is the most probable and should be preferred to the defendants' version.
(b) The plaintiff’s possession of the land in dispute is acknowledged by the adjoining boundary owners who testified for the plaintiff.
[p.15]
The plaintiff’s case in the High Court centred on traditional history and evidence of adjoining owners. He claims that his ancestors, Yeboah and his sister Buawa of the Kona clan, emigrated from Akyim Achiase and settled at Egyaa No. 1. There they met one Anamuah and his brother Apprenkumah who made a grant of the disputed land to them. In appreciation of the grant, Yeboah and Buawa gave the sum of £8 2s to their benefactors and in addition gave Anamuah a woman by name Otubu Demi in marriage. The plaintiff further claims that the defendants are descendants from the issue of that marriage, but as they later refused to honour certain family obligations they were prevented from farming on the disputed Apakye land by the Kona family. This, they said, happened about the year 1900.
The defendants deny the claim of the plaintiffs and aver that their ancestors Nana Baisie Affuna and his sister Ama Eku emigrated from Techiman and founded Egyaa No. 1. They claim that Anamuah later went to Egyaa No. 1 and married the daughter of Ama Eku by name Adjoa Akowa and had one issue, Okuntu, who succeeded Nana Baisie Affuna. The defendants further contend that Okuntu founded Ekurabadze and that when Yeboah and his sister Buawa later arrived at Egyaa No. 1 he offered them a place at Ekurabadze known as Bawaado.
Apart from reliance on traditional evidence the plaintiff called adjoining owners of the disputed Apakye land to give evidence to support his claim, with the exception of Kobina Foh with whom he says he forms boundary in the west, and each of them or their representatives claimed to own land contiguous with that claimed by the plaintiff. The witnesses called were Kweku