2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court appeal concerns a land dispute between Mankralo Tetteh Otibu, asserting his family’s allodial title over 23,552.27 acres, and appellants led by Ebenezer Kwaku, who claim a 14.06 square mile portion they have occupied for over a century. The High Court declared title in Otibu’s family, awarded GHc10,000 in trespass damages, and restrained appellants from developing or alienating without consent; the Court of Appeal affirmed. Before the Supreme Court, appellants argued their long occupation amounted to customary freehold/usufruct rights and urged application of the Limitation Act despite non-pleading; respondent’s submissions did not meet these points. The Supreme Court affirmed the respondent’s allodial title, rejected limitation as inapplicable because possession was permissive and there was no recovery-of-possession claim, and recognized appellants’ usufruct rights. It reversed the injunction and set aside trespass damages, holding appellants were not trespassers and may develop or alienate (subject to recognizing the allodial owner’s title).
APPAU, JSC:-
The Respondent in this appeal Mankralo Tetteh Otibu, sued the 1st Appellant herein Ebenezer Kwaku in the trial High Court, claiming his family’s title to a piece of land measuring 23,552.27 acres, which he said the 1st Appellant had trespassed onto. He sought further reliefs in the nature of damages for trespass and perpetual injunction. The 1st Appellant denied trespassing onto the land; a portion of which he claimed belonged to his family. He counter-claimed for title to that portion of the said land which is occupied by members of his family, damages for trespass, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction. Later, the 2nd Appellant joined in the action as Co-defendant in the trial High Court on the ground that he was the head of 1st Appellant’s family. He also counter-claimed for title to that same portion of the land for and on behalf of his family, order for refund of rent paid to the Respondent by various occupiers on the land, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction. That portion of the land which the two Appellants in this appeal claimed belonged to their family and over which they counter-claimed, falls within the larger land over which the Respondent sued. They described it as measuring 14.06 square miles. The disputed land was therefore the 14.06 square miles of land which lies within the 23,552.27 acres over which the Respondent sued. There was a 3rd Defendant, a Company by name Prince Mart Limited, which leaned on the 1st and 2nd Appellants for support during the trial as a lessee of the Appellants. That Company is not part of this appeal. The 1st and 2nd Defendants, who are the Appellants herein, (and would be referred to as such hereinafter), defended the action together on a claim that the disputed land belonged to their family.
At the end of the trial, the High Court found the Respondent’s case (then Plaintiff), more probable than the Appellants. The trial High Court found as a fact that Appellants’ family is on the disputed land upon permission granted them by the Respondent’s family, which owns the larger portion including the smaller portion claimed by the Appellants. The court, however, found that the said family had been in possession of that smaller portion for a long time. The trial High court accordingly granted judgment in favour of the Respondent on all the reliefs sought and dismissed Appellants counter-claim. It ordered the Appellants not to develop or alienate in any way, any portion of the disputed