KWABLA DZODANU & ORS v. RUBBER PLANTATION LTD
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- AKAMBA, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- APALOO, J.A.
- OFOE, J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appeal arises from a dispute over compensation obligations linked to a rubber plantation project on land formerly held by the State Farms Corporation and acquired through the Divestiture Implementation Committee, later leased under Exhibit A (12 March 1996) to the Stool of Asamankese. The lease required compensation for affected crops and buildings. After the Administrator of Stool Lands and valuation authorities enumerated crops, the company sought appointment of a surveyor, asserting farmers were expanding and demarcation was needed; plaintiffs maintained the only live issue was compensation, already quantified by enumeration. The trial judge refused the appointment. On appeal, OFOE, J.A., articulating the appellate standard for reviewing discretionary orders and citing Kyenkyenhene vrs Adu and Ballmoos vrs Mensah, held that the trial judge considered relevant matters and that demarcation would not advance adjudication. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal; AKAMBA, J.A. (Presiding) and APALOO, J.A. concurred.
J U D G M E N T
OFOE,J.A:
The facts of this case are simple and substantially not in dispute. The defendant/appellant company(hereinafter referred to as the defendant) has acquired from the Divestiture Implementation Committee lands for the cultivation of a rubber plantation. The land was originally under the cultivation of the defunct State Farms Corporation. There is a lease agreement, Exhibit A, dated the 12th of March 1996 that mentioned that the land was now vested in the Stool of Asamankese. It had become necessary to pay compensation to some of the settlers on the said lands to enable the defendant carry out the rubber plantation project. The lease agreement enjoined the defendant company to commence the development of the site into a Rubber Plantation within 2 years after concurrence is granted to the said lease by the Administrator of Stool Lands. By paragraph 4b of the lease the defendant was to pay compensation at current rates for all crops and buildings on the land to be affected by the rubber plantation project. On payment of the compensation to the owners/ occupants the lessor had the responsibility to cause the vacation of all occupants on the land to enable the company develop the land. It would appear that implementation of the lease agreement had not met the expectation of the plaintiffs/ occupants of the land in respect of the compensation payment. They therefore sued the defendant company at the Koforidua High Court claiming:
“(a) An order of the court to the defendants to comply with the terms of their lease
(b) An order of the court for the valuation of the farms to determine the government rated value of the farms”.
Whilst the plaintiffs claimed to be entitled to compensation for any destruction caused to their farms, the defendant resisted the payment, contending that compensation had already been paid earlier in the year 1987 to those entitled. To them the plaintiffs are licensees not entitled to any compensation. From the date the plaintiffs went to court with the defendants several things had happened concerning the compensation payments. There had been meetings between the chiefs, the farmers and the defendant. Court orders had been made for enumeration of the crops and the office of the Administrator of Stool Lands had carried out the enumeration awaiting the decision of the court whether the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation and how much. From the records of appeal the first court order was made on the 25th Februa