ASAFOATSE LAWER KORNOR DJABAKOR v. TETTEHYUM AMARTEY

J U D G M E N T

ARYEETEY, JSC

In this judgment we refer to the plaintiff/respondent/appellant as the plaintiff and the defendants/appellants/respondents as the defendants. What the plaintiff took to the High Court for determination was in respect of his family’s ancestral land which his great-grand-father, Tei Djabakor, and his brother Tetteh Akporsuer acquired by settlement. According to his pleading, his ancestors gave a portion of their land to the defendants’ ancestor by name Numo Amartey in 1910 as a licensee. What brought about the dispute between the plaintiff’s family and the defendants’ family, being descendants of Numo Amartey, is the refusal by the defendants to recognize the plaintiff’s family as owners of the land in respect of which they are licensees. Besides, the defendants by their conduct assert their rights supposedly as owners of the land in dispute which their ancestor Numo Amartey acquired by settlement. The plaintiff’s claim before the High Court was therefore for the following reliefs:

(i) Declaration of title of the Djabakor-Akporsuer-Kornor family of Tsangmer clan of Osudoku, to the triangular piece or parcel of land at Old Kadjanya in the Osudoku Traditional area ...

(ii) A declaration that, by denying the title of the plaintiff’s family to the Old Kadjanya land, the defendants have forfeited the customary license granted to them.

(iii) An order for recovery of possession of the land at the Old Kadjanya described in (i) above.

(iv) An order that the first defendant shall refund to the plaintiff’s family the amount of ¢9,522,000.00 being compensation which he collected from Irrigation Development Authority for wild palm trees, on the land at Old Kadjanya.

(v) General Damages for trespass from December 14th 2002, when the customary license was revoked by the plaintiff’s family to the date of judgment.

(vi) Mesne profits.

(vii) An order for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their children, agents, assigns, workmen etc from interfering with the land in whatsoever manner.

The trial court gave judgment in respect of all the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff. Sowah J., reading the judgment of the trial court had this to say at pages 285-286:

“The general rule that the head of a family as a representative of the family is the proper person to institute a suit for the recovery of family land is so settled that there is no need to belabour the point. (See Kwan v. Nyeni [1959] GLR 67 and Yormewu v. Awute [1987-88