AIDOO v. ADJEI AND OTHERS

JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.A.

The dispute in this case relates to a piece of land at Jukwa measuring 200 ft. by 150 ft. and abutting the Cape Coast-Jukwa road. It contains what was described in the site plan as a "residence" and two zinc sheds. By a conveyance dated 12 October 1960, and made between the Central Property Co., Ltd. then in liquidation and acting by a Mr. Frederick William Wilson therein described as the liquidator and J. J. Aidoo, the appellant, this plot together with the structures on it were conveyed to the latter "for an estate in possession free from incumbrances Unto and To the Use of the Purchaser his heirs, successors according to native law personal representatives and assigns for ever." The evidence shows that before the sale to the appellant, his vendors and their predecessors-in-title have been on the land for nearly half a century. The time was variously put at 1911 and 1912. The structures on the land were erected by the vendors.

Some time in November 1972, the first respondent entered onto a portion of the land and erected on it a "chop bar." When the appellant took issue with him for doing this, he said he was authorised to do this by the second respondent. He is the Omanhene of the Denkyira Traditional Area. The appellant did not accept that the second respondent was entitled to permit the entry on to the land which he claimed as his own. He therefore sued the first respondent and sought against him declaration of title and damages for trespass.

As was to be expected, the Omanhene of Denkyira acting jointly with the Jukwamuhene sought to join the action. They claimed that the first respondent's entry on the land and his erection of the structure complained of, were done with their prior consent. They laid title in the land in themselves and disputed the appellant's right to the reliefs which he sought against the first respondent. Their application was acceded to. On being joined, they filed a joint defence in which they again asserted their ownership. They could not deny that the appellant's vendors were at one time in possession of the land and being an alien company could only have come onto the land by reason of some agreement with the owners. The second and third respondents pleaded that:

[p.434]

"The co-defendants further aver that there was no formal agreement entered into between the said Central Property Co., Ltd. and the co-defendants' predecessors, but it was a mere grant made to the said company with the underst