GHANA CONSOLIDATED DIAMONDS LTD v. BOAHENE AND ANOTHER
1998
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- AMPIAH JJ.A.
- WUAKU
- OSEI-HWERE
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
- Administrative Law
- Tort Law
- Civil Procedure
1998
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Court of Appeal case concerns competing claims over Ayawaso (“Ayawaso/Ayawaso”) fetish lands at Akwatia between the plaintiff, who held a diamond digging licence from the Akwatia stool, and the defendant-company, which held a government-granted concession and lease evidenced by certificate of validity No. 387. The High Court had awarded possession, injunction, damages and title to the plaintiffs, prompting the defendant-company’s appeal. Ampiah J.A., writing for the court, held that the certificate’s protection of fetish lands operates as a limitation on mining, not an exclusion from the concession. A 1952 agreement among the paramount stool, the Akwatia stool, and the company validly clarified the fetish grove’s extent and was enforceable without being a legal modification under Cap 136 section 34. The plaintiff’s licence conferred no entry right; under Act 123 section 8, any disposal affecting stool land required ministerial concurrence and a lease, which were absent, rendering the transaction void. The appeal was allowed, the plaintiffs’ claims dismissed, and the company’s counterclaim for declaration and injunction was granted.
UDGMENT OF AMPIAH J.A.
The plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to simply as the plaintiff) sued the defendant-appellants-company (also referred to hereinafter simply as the defendant-company) for:
"(a) . . . recovery of possession of all that piece or parcel of land situate and being at Akwatia (Yawaso fetish lands) and bounded on the north by S K Awuah's concession and on the south-west and west by Akwatia stool lands or otherwise described as all that piece or parcel of land containing an approximate area of 23 acres situate at Akwatia and lying to the south of Aman Pumping Station and to the West Akim Abuakwa District of the Eastern Region of the Republic excluding the fetish, all residential buildings and sheds in the area which piece or parcel of land the defendants have taken possession of without lawful excuse.
(b) ¢200,000 damages for trespass.
(c) Perpetual injunction against the defendants, their servants or agents.
On 10 March 1978 the plaintiff's grantor was joined in the action as the co-plaintiff. Both filed a joint statement of claim which amended the original writ of summons by claiming an additional relief, namely a declaration of title to the disputed land and also for increased damages of ¢500,000.
By its amended statement of defence, the defendant-company counterclaimed for:
"(i) A declaration that the defendants have a valid concession in respect of the disputed land.
(ii) A perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff and/or the co-plaintiff, their respective servants and agents from entering upon the land in dispute and prospecting diamonds thereon or in any way interfering with their quiet enjoyment of the defendants' concession."
The parties joined issues on their pleadings and the case proceeded to trial with a view to determining the issues involved, as agreed upon. On 23 September 1980 judgment was given for the plaintiff against the [p.92] defendant-company for recovery of possession of the land in dispute. The court made an order of perpetual injunction against the defendant-company and awarded the plaintiff general damages of ¢500,000. The court also declared title in the land in the co-plaintiff and awarded a total of ¢ 10,000 costs against the defendant-company. It is against this judgment that the defendant-company has appealed.
Many grounds of appeal were filed and argued in this appeal. It appears to me however that the most crucial is the one which alleges that:
"the learned trial Judge erred in la