AFARI v. NYAME

JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.

Both the appellant and the respondent claim title to the land in dispute through one and the same person, one Kwame Amponsah Darko. The appellant based his claim upon a sale made by private treaty on the 30th December, 1950, while the respondent based his claim upon a sale made to him on the 15th September, 1958, by one Kwadjo Duku who purchased the right title or interest of the same Kwame Amponsah Darko at a sale in execution against the said Kwame Amponsah Darko, made on the 30th July, 1951.

A purchaser at a sale in execution acquires nothing more than the right, title and interest of the execution-debtor. In July, 1951, Kwame Amponsah Darko had no right, title or interest in the farms in dispute because he had already disposed of the same to the respondent as far back as December, 1950. Therefore Amponsah Darko obtained no title to the farms in dispute by the sale under the attachment. Consequently, the respondent who bought from the said Amponsah Darko, also acquired no right, title or interest in the land.

Upon the purchase of the land, the appellant entered into possession and collected cocoa rehabilitation grants in respect of it; he later placed the farm in charge of a labourer who remained in possession until he was driven away by the respondent about two years ago. Therefore the appellant proved not only his title to the land, he also proved invasion of his possession of the land by the respondent.

The attachment under which the sale took place was made in June, 1951. The appellant immediately interpleaded. That interpleader suit was disposed of on the 20th September, 1951, after the execution-creditor had failed to appear upon many adjournments and the court made an order for the release of the properties from attachment. The execution- creditor then applied to the court, the District Magistrate's Court, Koforidua, to review its order, but his application was refused on the 11th October, 1951. The alleged sale of the properties took place on the 30th July, 1951. According to the auctioneer, one Jones Kojo Bruce, D.W.1, four farms were attached but the interpleader was in respect of one farm only, and that there was no interpleader in respect of the farms now in dispute. But his evidence that only one property was attached is not borne out by the order of the district magistrate's court which ordered "that the said properties be released from attachment", meaning more than one property.

The local court magistrate seem