MADAM YAA SAAH v. NANA GYAKWAW & OTHERS
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARFUL-SAU, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- ADJEI, J.A.
- ACKAH-YENSU, J.A
Areas of Law
- Property Law
- Customary Law
- Civil Procedure
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court affirmed the plaintiff's declaration of title to the disputed land and restrained the defendants from interfering with the property. It held that the plaintiff, as the head of her immediate family, had the capacity to sue and be sued in respect of the property, and ruled that the plaintiff's claim to the land through succession was valid. The court further discussed the principles of appeals being by way of rehearing and addressed the issue of capacity to sue for family land under customary law.
J U D G M E N T
DENNIS ADJEI, J.A:
On 21st March, 2007 the Circuit Court Tarkwa gave judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent (hereafter called the plaintiff) against the defendants/Appellants (hereafter called the defendants) for;
“1. A declaration of title and recovery of possession of all that piece or parcel of land situate and lying at Bawdie and Asankragwa road bounded by the main road from Bawdie to Asangragwa, late Abena Afirim’s Secondary forest which has been succeeded by Madam Adwoa Donkor and Opanin Anokwa secondary forest and some buildings at Bawdie and
2. An order for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s said property”.
The defendants dissatisfied with the judgment delivered by the Circuit Court appealed against same on 12th April, 2007 praying this court to reverse the judgment. The grounds of appeal contained in the Notice of Appeal are as follows:
“a. the learned trial Judge erred in law by declaring that “Exhibit 2” (Indenture) was null and void when the said relief was not before the Honourable Court.
b. the learned trial Judge erred in law when in one breadth he declared that “Exhibit 2” was null and void and in another breadth declined jurisdiction in ascertaining who was the proper person to alienate the Bawdie lands.
c. the learned trial Judge failed to consider the case of the Defendants.
d. The learned trial Judge erred in law by declaring that 1st defendant cannot alienate his own stool land.
e. The learned trial Judge erred by not considering the evidence of DW1 which would have gone a long way in determining the matter.
f. the learned trial judge erred in declaring the plaintiff as the proper grantor of her family lands when plaintiff is not the Head of family.
g. The learned trial Judge did not fully appreciate the legal effect of the judgment in Suit No. LS.17/97, High Court, Tarkwa which was contained in “Exhbit 1”.
h. Additional grounds shall be filed upon receipt of the Record”.
The facts of the case were that the plaintiff’s grandmother Adwoa Nemakye and Uncle Bre Kojo were the original acquirers of the disputed land. The late Bre Kojo predeceased Adwoa Nemakye and after his death the late Adwoa Nemakye exercised absolute ownership rights over the property. One Afia Ankaa who was a daughter of Adwoa Nemakye succeeded her and the land devolved unto her. The plaintiff’s mother was Afia Ankaa and she succeeded her mother after her death. The plaintiff had