AMPAABENG AND OTHERS v. EDWEY IX AND OTHERS
February 22, 1967
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ARCHER
- KINGSLEY-NYINAH
- ANNAN JJ.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Constitutional Law
- Tort Law
February 22, 1967
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case concerns a long-running land dispute between the stools of Gomoa Akyemfo and Gomoa Mumford over land between their villages. The Akyemfo stool, represented by its regent and an elder, sued the Mumford chief and ten subjects for title, trespass damages, possession, and an injunction after Mumford subjects began building on the disputed land. An interim injunction initially restrained both sides from new construction, later varied by the Court of Appeal to preserve the status quo at the writ date and permit only buildings already commenced by the appellants to be completed. Despite this, Mumford subject Kwame Emminsah sought leave to complete a building based on hardship. Dove J. granted the application, but on appeal the higher court emphasized absolute obedience to injunctions, the incompetence of the High Court to amend a Court of Appeal order, and set aside the ruling, allowing the appeal with costs.
JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.S.C.
In this case the plaintiffs, who were the regent and one of the elders representing the stool and Oman of Gomoa Akyemfo, brought and action against the first defendant, who is the chief, and ten other defendants who are subjects of the first defendants’s stool of Gomoa Mumford. The action is in reality a claim substantially by the stool of Gomoa Akyemfo against the stool of Gomoa Mumford [p.172] for a declaration of title. It involves an area of land lying between the villages of Gomoa Akyemfo and Gomoa Mumford, the ownership of which the first plaintiff’s stool and the first defendant's stool both lay claim to.
The plaintiffs issued their writ on 23 July 1973 and it is amazing that almost sixteen years after the writ, the High Court, Cape Coast has not as yet disposed of the case. It seems to me that this inexplicable and unnecessary protraction of the hearing and disposal of cases will erode the confidence of the people in the ability of our courts to dispense justice in a fair and expeditious manner. Surely the legislative and executive authorities cannot be blamed when in the face of such nonchalant approach to adjudication by the courts, they tend to give serious consideration to the establishment of other judicial organs of the State in the hope that they will administer justice at least without these inordinate delays which seem to characterise our brand of justice in modern times in our courts. The much overworked statement: "Justice delayed is justice denied," is not an idle and meaningless expression as far as litigants affected to the courts' tardiness are concerned. In my opinion, it is about time the judiciary by its rules of court formulates regulations that will introduce some discipline into the judicial system and seriously tackle at least inordinate delays which are so extraordinary and so pervasive as to be clearly inexcusable and unjustifiable on any rational ground.
Be this as it may, the events that led to the issue of the writ are that the ten other defendants who are subjects of the stool of Mumford, whose occupant is the first defendant, commenced building operations on the disputed land which was also being claimed by the stool of Gomoa Akyemfo. Having regard to the principle of the customary law, it is clear that any subject of a stool is entitled to the usufruct of any portion of stool land which is not occupied by any other subject. He occupies it either with the actual approval or the presumed co