2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On appeal from the High Court in Kumasi, the occupant of the Kumawu Stool sought to recover the market value of 278,971 acres allegedly taken and cultivated by an indigene of Kumawu, along with an alternative order for recovery of possession. He pleaded as custodian of Kumawu Stool lands and claimed a valuation of Ghc18,734.000.00, including 71 acres at Naama, while the Respondent asserted customary grants by the late Kumawuhene and significant community contributions, and counterclaimed for declarations over three parcels totaling 2,789.71 acres. The trial judge isolated capacity to collect stool land revenue, held that under Article 267(2) and Act 481 only the Administrator of Stool Lands may collect rents, dues and other payments, and dismissed the action. Presiding Justice I.O. Tanko Amadu, with Justices H.A. Kwofie and A. Oppong concurring, affirmed that the Appellant, though a juristic stool occupant, lacked locus standi to recover stool land revenue or to sustain the alternative possession claim absent a substantive pleading. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the counterclaim to be determined separately on the merits.
JUDGMENT
TANKO AMADU JSC
(1) This appeal is from the ruling of the High Court (Kumasi) dated the 29th day of April 2019 wherein the Plaintiff/Appellant’s writ was dismissed on grounds of want of capacity to institute the action.
(2) In the High Court, the Plaintiff/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellant’) commenced action by writ against the Defendant/ Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent) and sought the following reliefs:-
“a. An order of the court for the recovery of the market value of
the 278,971 acres of land that the Defendant has taken over and cultivated without paying the necessary consideration to the Plaintiff.
b. Or: An alternative order for recovery of possession of the said
parcel of land.”
(3) In the accompanying statement of claim, the Appellant disclosed his capacity as owner of all Kumawu Stool Lands and sues as occupant of the Stool. He averred further that, the Respondent who is a native of Kumawu and paramount citizen for that matter, has succeeded in taking over some lands belonging to the Appellant’s stool and has cultivated them. The Appellant’s pleadings did not disclose the nature of the Respondent’s acquisition but proceeds to aver that, the Appellant having caused a valuation of the land on which the Respondent has planted economic trees to be undertaken, he sought to recover the quantum of valuation in the sum of Ghc18,734.000.00 which includes the value of another parcel of land measuring about 71 acres taken over by the Respondent at a place called Naama within the customary jurisdiction of the Appellant.
(4) The Respondent not only put up a vehement defence to the Appellant’s action, but denied substantially all the material allegations contained in the Appellant’s statement of claim. The Respondent asserted that as a native of Kumawu and one who made substantial contribution to resolution of disputes particularly the boundary dispute intituled KWAMANG STOOL VS. BEPOSO STOOL & KUMAWU STOOL which resulted in a favourable decision of the Supreme Court in 1998, he was customarily entitled to the lands allocated to him by the late Kumawuhene (the Appellant’s predecessor) by virtue of his status as an indigene and one who has supported Kumawu with distinction by reason of numerous development projects, he the Respondent has undertaken for the benefit of Kumawu. The Respondent asserted further that, the Appellant was not entitled to the reliefs endorsed as the same were frivolous and unsust