ANKOBEAHENE KOJO GYENIN v. KWASI ADAI

Judgment :

This case concerns the ownership of a farm at Brofuyedru in the Offinso Division. It was instituted by oath, the subject matter of which was the boundary of a farm owned by the late Kramo Seidu. The defendant bought by public auction the right, title and interest of Kramo Seidu in his farm near that village. The plaintiff, six years after the issue of the Certificate of Purchase, swore oath to the effect that the farm where his labourers were warned off by the plaintiff had never been Seidu's.

The case was heard in the Offinso Native Court which gave judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the Asantehene's " A " Court and was successful on the grcund of wrong constitution of the lower Court and it remitted the case for re-hearing. The plaintiff did not attend the re-hearing and judgment went in favour of the defendant; the plaintiff then appealed and the Asantehene's "A" Court upheld the appeal, finding that the farm about which the dispute arose was never Kramo Seidu's but that it belonged to the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to this Court.

The main ground of appeal was that judgment was against the weight of evidence. The appellant relied largely on his Certificate of Purchase, the respondent on the history of his claim. The respondent alleged that he had no knowledge of the sale of Seidu's farms, and this I believe. The defendant-appellant cannot own more than what Kramo Seidu owned.

After hearing argument the Court visited the area in dispute and then permitted evidence to be called - that of the Auctioneer who sold the farm and that of a Forest Ranger who put in evidence a plan showing the ownership of the farms in Brofuyedru village lands in 1929. I think the evidence of the Forest Ranger decides any doubt there may have previously been, and that the farm where the dispute arose belongs to the plaintiff.

I therefore dismiss the appeal. But I do not necessarily grant costs to the plaintiff-respondent. If he had attended the re-hearing of the case at the Offinso Court, it is possible that this lengthy litigation would have been considerably shortened. Costs up to the conclusion of the re-hearing in the Offinso Court I therefore award to the plaintiff-respondent; he must pay the defendant-appellant's costs from that stage until to-day.

As the defendant-appellant acted, I think, in good faith, I make no order for an account of the proceeds from the farm; but if any are on

deposit, arising since the institution of this