ANYETEY CHANTEY v. TEI KWABLAH KWEINOR
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- Kusi-Appiah J.A.
- Ayebi J.A.
- Sowa J.A.
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff, representing the Anyetey Kwablah family, initiated a legal action asserting that their ancestor discovered and owned the disputed land, and granted the defendant's family permission to live there as licensees. The plaintiff sought confirmation of ownership and an injunction against the defendant's adverse claims. The defendant contested, claiming longstanding ownership of the land. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, which was upheld on appeal. The appellate court found that the plaintiff successfully demonstrated their title to the land, relying on evidence, including a historical chief's list and prior eviction judgments. The court affirmed that a licensee’s long possession does not confer ownership and that judgments bind the successors of parties involved. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the original judgment.
JUDGMENT
KUSI-APPIAH, J.A.:
The simple issue in this appeal is the factual one of determining whether the plaintiff’s family (now Respondent) or the defendant’s family (the Appellant herein) is the rightful owner of the disputed land.
In my view, that issue was elaborately pleaded and adequately canvassed at the trial to obviate any blurring of it. I turn first to the pleadings. In paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the amended statement of claim, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were their licensees and were permitted to live on the land in dispute only as long as they continue to acknowledge the title of the plaintiff’s family.
It is the case of the plaintiff that he is presently the Head of Anyetey Kwablah family of Ningo following Anyetey Kwablah who succeeded their father Nartey Asamoah. That the disputed land was originally discovered by the plaintiff’s ancestor by name Nartey Asamoah long ago and he and his descendants have been the owners in possession of the land described in the schedule in uninterrupted occupation for several generations. He averred that the defendant is a descendant of Tei Kwablah Forzi who and others were allowed by the grandfather of the plaintiff Nartey Asamoah to settle on a portion of the plaintiff’s land at Zubanyatey.
According to the plaintiff, the Forzi family of which Tei Kwablah Forzi, defendant’s father and others form part were staying at Tekpenya where their father and or grandfather was a licensee of a certain family, Ameoda family. That the Forzi family challenged the title to the land of the family licensor. The Ameoda family sued Kudadzi Forzi as the successor of Forzi. The Ameoda family won the case and evicted the Forzi family (led by the said Kudadzi Forzi) from the land at Tekpenya. When the defendant’s family was allegedly evicted from Tekpenya they approached Nartey Asamoah, the chief of Kopodor for a place to stay and farm. The plaintiff contended that Nartey Asamoah obliged and granted them a piece of land at Zubanyatey on condition that they acknowledge the title of plaintiff’s family by annually offering fowls and some drinks when the chief was performing the festival of his deity, Obunyuku.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s predecessors observed this condition until recently when the defendant rebelled and laid adverse claim to the land.
On 13th May, 2014, the plaintiff therefore brought an action against the defendant for the following reliefs:
“(a) Declaration that the lan