Try asking the following...
RULING
The 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs are grantees of the 1st Plaintiff, a limited liability company registered under the laws of Ghana.
The 2nd and 3rd Defendants are also grantees of the 1st Defendant who claims to be the Dzasetse of Danchira, which is made up of four families: namely Sawyer Pramano, Amanfo, Juabeng, and Kubeshishie.
The 1st Plaintiff claimed it acquired certain pieces of land from the Djan-bi family of Danchira, who have been declared holders of Danchira lands, some having been acquired by their great ancestor Kwami Amu.
The 1st Plaintiff added that the ownership of Danchira land by Djan-bi Amu families has been decreed by Courts of competent jurisdiction.
The judgments of the Courts of competent jurisdiction included those pronounced on the cases of Quamin v. Insaki, Ahumah Oku, and others dated 14th July, 1891, and Nii Armah II, Dzasetse and Acting Manche of Asere, Suit No. L17/75. The 1st Plaintiff averred that after the acquisition of the pieces of land, it went into immediate possession, but the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants and their agents attacked them and gravely disturbed their possession amidst threats of violence.
As a result, on 14th May, 2007, the 1st Plaintiff sued those Defendants and claimed for a declaration of title to the described land therein, damages for trespass, and an injunction to restrain the Defendants from interfering with the 1st Plaintiff’s land.
The 1st Plaintiff subsequently joined its then grantor Nii Teiko Okine to the suit as co-Plaintiff.
Whilst the suit was pending, Nii Teiko Okine died and was substituted by Nii Tackie Amoah VI.
The Defendants in that case filed a defense and also sued the Plaintiff by way of counterclaim for a declaration of title to a certain described land of approximately 13, 913 acres; recovery of possession, special damages, and perpetual injunction.
On 1st February, 2010, the Court then constituted by Amadu Tanko J (as he then was) after hearing the case entered judgment in favor of the four composite families by granting reliefs of recovery of possession and perpetual injunction as endorsed on the counterclaim.
In effect, the High Court dismissed the relief of declaration of title to the 13, 913-acre land as claimed by the Defendants.
Of course, it also meant that the 1st Plaintiff’s action was dismissed.
The 1st Plaintiff, being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, appealed to the Court of Appeal, and the appeal was unanimously upheld, and the High Court judgment