BAKU v. DAKU & ORS

JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Buem-Krachi Native Appeal Court, which upheld a decision of the Buem Native Court "B" given in favour of the plaintiff, but varied an order made by the Native Court "B" for the payment of an amount of £24 10s. Od. to the 3rd defendant.

The main issues in the case are whether the farm in dispute is the property of the plaintiff, and whether the purported sale thereof by the 1st defendant to the 3rd defendant was lawful. These two issues were resolved in favour of the plaintiff by both the native trial-Court and the Native Appeal Court. Counsel for the 3rd defendant has not sought to challenge those two concurrent findings of fact, and their legal consequences.

In this Court it has been urged on behalf of the 3rd defendant that he is entitled to be reimbursed the expenses which he had incurred on improving the farm during the 16 years that it had been in his possession as a result of the wrongful sale to him, and that this Court in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction should make an order to that effect. He led no evidence, however, to show that he had made improvements on the farm. All that he said was that the farm contained only foodstuffs when he purported to purchase it, and that it is now a cocoa farm. His witness, however, said that there were young cocoa trees in the farm, just beginning to flower, at the time of its purchase. Again, the 3rd defendant did not disclose the mesne profits which he had realised from the farm during the period of his wrongful occupation. There is therefore no evidence that he has suffered any detriment for which equity should be invoked in his aid.

Again, there is nothing to show that the plaintiff has been guilty of any improper conduct to the detriment of the 3rd defendant. On the contrary, his evidence, and that of his only witness (Yevoga Tsekor, the agent who negotiated the purchase of the farm for him), disclosed recklessness on the former's part in entering into the transaction. Both the 3rd defendant and the agent relied upon representations made to them by the 1st defendant, and by his brother Robert (now deceased) that the farm belonged to the 1st defendant. They took no steps to check those representations. Any loss which the 3rd defendant may have suffered, therefore, is attributable to his own fault, and not to any conduct or act of the plaintiff.

The Native Appeal Court also held that as the 3rd defendant is a non-native of Southern T