KWAME BONSU v. KWAME KUSI AND GIFTY KUSI AMPOFOWAA

J U D G M E N T

WOOD (MRS), C.J:

On the 4th of November 2009, by a majority decision of three to two, Georgina Wood CJ, Ansah and Dotse JSC, dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and reserved our reasons. We now assign our reasons for our decision to affirm the judgment of the court below.

This appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 15th April 2005, relates to a parcel of land on Guggisberg Road Adum, Kumasi, more particularly described as Plot No. 10, Block V111. On the 23rd of August 1999, the Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent (Respondent), in his capacity as a principal member and elder of the Nana Ama Family of Nsuase issued a writ of summons against the 1st Defendant-Respondent-Appellant (Appellant) for a declaration that the land in question is the property of the Plaintiff’s Family, general damages for trespass and perpetual injunction. 2nd Defendant successfully joined the action through her next friend Vida Kusi.

The parties are ad idem as regards the identity of the land. The central issue is who owns the land, the subject matter of this suit which was filed some ten years ago.

The Plaintiff, who claimed that he was suing in protection and preservation of family property due to divisions within the family and the inaction of the head of family despite repeated calls on him to act decisively in defence of the family’s rights, maintained that the disputed property was originally acquired by his ancestors, Nana Ama Serwaah and Nana Kweku Bewuowu around 1906. He further alleges that in 1926, the Kumasi Public Health Board acquired a site in the vicinity of his ancestor’s property for “sanitary purposes”. He further alleged that in demolishing the structures on the site the Board had acquired for the project, they inadvertently demolished the two buildings which his ancestors had erected on their plot of land, some twenty years earlier.

By the Plaintiff’s account, eventually after years of agitation, the government of Ghana in 1968 returned their land to the family. This was expected to be done through Mr. Michael Reginald Asante, the head of family at the time, whom, understandably, by virtue of his position as such family head, and the equally important fact that he was literate, was authorised by the family, to conduct all negotiations with regard to the property for and on behalf of the family as family property, and clearly not as his personal property. The plaintiff claimed that since then he had dea