IDDRISU AYAA TETTEH v. WINFRED OTUAFRO ARYEH TENMOTE AKAKPO

J U D G M E N T

ANIN YEBOAH, JSC:

The facts of this appeal appear not to be in controversy. The plaintiff/Respondent (who shall hereafter be referred to as the plaintiff) commenced an action against the defendant/appellants (who shall be referred to as the defendant) in this appeal at the Fast Track High Court, Accra. The action was brought in a representative capacity by the plaintiff suing as the head and lawful representative of Ayaa Kwabla family.

It appeared that in a previous suit titled: suit № 1/2001: IDDDRISU AMAA TETTEY V. WINFRED OTUATO ARYEH & OR, the trial judge, His Lordship Mr. Justice Victor Ofoe had on 22/08/2002 determined a land suit in favour of the plaintiff herein and made far-reaching consequential orders in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.

For a fuller record, the order which the learned judge made that resulted in the commencement of this case on appeal before us is as follows:

“The understanding I will put on Exhibit “c” is that defendants’ site plan showing an area of 336.26 acres has plaintiff’s land of about 200 acres. On each acre of 200 acres the parties agree that the defendants are to pay ¢2000. Defendants have occupied further plots of the plaintiff the parties describe these as residential plot. A superimposition of the defendants site plan and that of the plaintiff’s and a survey of defendants’ site plan in Exhibit 1 of area 336.26 acres on the ground should be able to carve out the 200 acres the subject matter of Exhibit C. This survey work should also be able to carve out the average on which the residential plots are for the appropriate compensation to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. I will order that completion of the survey work by a surveyor agreed upon by the parties the defendants pays the balance if any on the 200 acres or more after deduction of the ¢5 million already paid by the defendants”

We have quoted ad longum, the order made by the learned trial judge which the defendants herein did not find it necessary or refused to carry out. The plaintiff commenced this action more than three years after the order in the previous suit was made. In the present action it is the contention of the plaintiff that the value of the land in the area in dispute had not been the same after the delivery of the judgment as the defendant had failed or refused to carry out the order the amount of ¢2,000 per acre as rent was meaningless as at the time the writ culminating in this appeal was issued.