DARFOUR JNR. v. BOATENG

JUDGMENT OF KINGSLEY NYINAH J.A.

In about the month of October 1964, the respondent to this present appeal visited a farm which had customarily devolved upon him, following the deaths of his uncles Kwabena Sarkodee and Kwaku Tawiah. He found some labourers working in the farm. Upon inquiry, he learned that they were there at the express instance of the appellant herein. He requested the labourers to inform their master that both they, and he, had violated his ownership and possession of that farm by their unauthorised and, therefore, unlawful entry and presence thereon. When, after a second visit to that farm, he again met those labourers still on the farm, working, the present respondent sought out the appellant in Nkawkaw, and protested the violation. The appellant's answer was that he was the rightful owner, by purchase, of that farm.

In the result, the present respondent (as the plaintiff) instituted proceedings against the appellant herein (as the defendant) to settle the issue of title in the local court at Anyinam, couching his claim in the following terms:

"The plaintiff being customary successor to the late Kwabena Sarkodee and the late Kwaku Tawiah, all of New Jejeti, claims from the defendant declaration, title and possession of all that piece or parcel of land with cocoa, trees and food crops thereon situate lying and being at Train Kwang near New Jejeti which the defendant had unlawfully trespass (sic.) to cultivate a farm."

And for good measure, the respondent threw in a further claim for £100 as damages for that trespass. In issue, therefore as the pivotal matter for determination, was the question: who was the better entitled, as the rightful owner, to hold, possess, occupy and enjoy the land and the farms thereon, situate, lying and being at New Jejeti: the respondent or the present appellant?

By the very nature of his writ and claim, the respondent at once assumed the legal obligation of leading such reasonably probable evidence, before the trial court, as would establish for him a better, more superior title, than the present appellant had and, thereby, defeat and exclude whatever pretentions to title, possession, or ownership that the said appellant entertained in the disputed parcel of land.

It is a well-established tenet of the law, as enunciated in Kponuglo v. Kodadja (1933) 2 W.A.C.A. 24, P.C. that to succeed on a claim for title and possession, it is incumbent upon the party suing therefore to show, not only that he was the t