March 10, 2006
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal, per Apaloo, J.A., affirmed a High Court judgment arising from a decades-long dispute over a 500-acre tract known as Bokor land. The Bokor family claimed ownership through an ancestor’s acquisition from Gbettor of the Gevier clan. The 1st Defendant’s Afloto family, descended from Asafo, had lived on the land for over 300 years by Bokor’s permission, without tribute or internal boundary demarcation. The 2nd Defendant asserted title to adjacent Dzawoe land founded by Tsrienye and relied on prior judgments to fix boundaries. The appellate court upheld the trial judge’s boundary determination consistent with a 1916 judgment and a 1940 decision, found no basis for trespass damages because the palm trees’ location was not proven to be within the Plaintiff’s exclusive domain and the Afloto family’s occupation was permissive, denied a perpetual injunction as unconscionable given centuries of possession, and declined to review costs, dismissing both the Plaintiff’s and 2nd Defendant’s appeals.
APALOO, JA - This appeal emanates from the judgment of the High Court Ho, dated 15th November 1996. The Court was presided by his Lordship G. K. Acquah then a Supreme Court Judge sitting as additional High Court Judge.
The trial judge entered judgment for the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant for a declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner of the Bokor land.
While dismissing 1st Defendant’s counter-claim the trial Judge refused Plaintiff’s reliefs for damages and perpetual injunction against the 1st Defendant.
The Plaintiff had sought by his writ the following reliefs.
a) A declaration that the Defendant was a mere tenant or alternatively a licensee of the Plaintiff in respect of the land in dispute.
b) Damages for trespass.
c) Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant’s Afloto family, their servants, agents etc.
from further felling the Bokor family’s oil palms or making any fresh cultivation of the said parcel of land without the consent in writing of the Plaintiff.
By his defence the 1st Defendant stated among others that the land the subject matter of the claim devolved on the Mankralo or chief but subject to user by both Plaintiff and Defendant’s families respectively.
1st Defendant added that the palm trees felled by him were his bona fide property.
The 2nd Defendant who joined the suit as Co-defendant by a statement of defence averred particularly by his paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 as follows: -(3) The Co-defendant says that the land in dispute, which is known as Dzawor land was founded by his great ancestor by the name Tsrienye.
On one side by the Plaintiff, on one side by the Defendant and on one side by the property of the Co-defendant.
Two appeals were filed for determination.
The first by 2nd Defendant/Appellant and the second by the Plaintiff/Appellant.
The first appeal attacked the judgment affecting the 2nd Defendant and his claims to the Dzawoe land.
His grounds were that the judgment was against the weight of evidence and that the trial judge failed to correctly define the boundaries established between the Plaintiff’s Bokor land and the 2nd Defendant’s Dzawoe land as clearly set out in the case.