AGONA STOOL, per AGONAHENE AKYEAMPONG AKWASI II v. SAMPANEY

Judgment :

When the hearing opened I intimated that the Court did not regard favourably an action brought for mesne profits after an action for recovery of possession had been decided in plaintiff's favour: that is, because, to avoid multiplicity of suits, the plaintiff should join his claim for mesne profits with the claim for recovery of possession.

Under the Indian Procedure Code this action would not be maintainable, because the causes of action could not be split in the manner that the plaintiff has done in this suit; but there is nothing in our Ordinance to debar the plaintiff from bringing his action for damages after obtaining judgment for ejectment: that was the old practice in England before the Common Law Procedure Act and it is good practice here.

The plaintiff sued the defendant in the Native Court claiming a declaration that House No. M.E. 64 Kumasi is Stool property and for an order prohibiting defendant having any further dealings with it or entering it. Allowing for the latitude in the framing of the suit in a Native Court, I hold that that was a claim in ejectment: that is to say, for recovery of possession and that the judgment of the Native Court, upheld by the Chief Commissioner's Court, Ashanti, on the 16th day of July, 1945, is a judgment in ejectment.

Reading from page 433 of "Mayne on Damages, 9th Edition," "the action for mesne profits is in origin an action of trespass brought after a judgment in ejectment to recover damages for the previous occupation of the land." The defendant is therefore liable for mesne profits from February, 1943 to November, 1945 when he went out of possession. He is entitled, if he has made any payments while in possession for which the plaintiff would be liable, as ground rents or rates and taxes, to have them taken in reduction of damages.

Judgment for Plaintiff for £887/- and costs assessed at £157/- of which £1010 /- to counsel.