ALIFO AND THE v. AMEDZA

JUDGMENT OF AKIWUMI J.S.C.

Akiwumi J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. On or about the 28th April, 1945, the defendant in this case instituted an action against the plaintiffs in this case in the native court of Peki in which he claimed:

“The appearance of the defendants jointly and severally before the native court to show cause and assign reasons why they would not pay a rent of 3 loads of cocoa yearly each in respect of their cocoa farms on plaintiff’s land at Adabotoloe.”

In that case judgment was given for the present plaintiffs. The present defendant appealed to the native court of appeal which reversed the judgment and ordered the plaintiffs to remain on their farms, but to pay each by way of rent two loads of cocoa annually to the defendant. The nature of the claim in that case was a claim for declaration of title to the land and for rent for occupation of it. The plaintiffs being dissatisfied appealed to the Land Court and on the 25th October, 1950, Coussey, J. dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the native appeal court but amended it by adding after the word “rent”, “or the value thereof on or before the 1st of January each year.”

The plaintiffs still not satisfied appealed therefrom to the West African Court of Appeal and on the 7th July, 1952, the appeal was dismissed.

In the meantime while the plaintiffs were busy appealing from court to court the defendant by reason of the judgment of the native appeal court in his favour ejected the plaintiffs from their farms and took possession thereof. The plaintiffs finding there was no success for them appealed in vain personally to the defendant to return the farms to them agreeing to pay the rent of cocoa ordered against them. The defendant refusing their petitions, the plaintiffs now instituted the present case against him. The claim reads as follows:

“The plaintiffs litigated with defendant and cover the property described in the claim below:

The courts ruled that 2 loads of cocoa be given to defendant annually. In contravention to the court’s order the defendants have seized the farms and have been enjoying all the proceeds contrary to the court’s ruling. Wherefore the plaintiffs claim from defendants an account of the proceeds of farms situate and being at Peki and bounded on the east by Daa Kofi and Akutu Kwasi’s properties on the west by Amedza Kwasi’s property on the north by Amedza Kwasi’s property and the sought by Amedza Kwasi’s property which area covers the in