GH - MANSU v. ABBOYE AND ANOTHER

JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.A.

By his writ, the plaintiff-appellant, hereafter called the plaintiff, sought a declaration of title to his family's land at Yarbiw in the Western Region. He pleaded that his ancestors had reduced the virgin forest into cultivation and had been in uninterrupted occupation of it until the trespass complained of.

The half-hearted attempt at a traverse of the plaintiff's claim was exposed in the complete failure of the defence to challenge the plaintiff's boundary neighbours who testified in his support and who claimed to be still in possession of their farms. The only witness for the defence dealt the co-defendant a lethal blow when he asserted, "The plaintiff's land is not included in the land of the second defendant."

The co-defendant's case was, however, that as the Odikro of Yarbiw, he was the allodial owner of Yarbiw lands. He had also fought for the release of the lands from the State Farms Corporation which had previously acquired them compulsorily. The lands had reverted to him with the blessing of the town committee, and therefore he had every authority to grant a licence to the defendant to tap and uproot palm trees, perhaps in the better interest of husbandry and for the good of the entire community. He, however, made no claim against the plaintiff for breaches of customary tenure which would justify forfeiture, nor was he attempting re-possession following abandonment. [p.1315] Indeed, his was the novel proposition that a stool could estreat a subject's land and extinguish his possessory title, if land compulsorily acquired were later released, or if the town committee decreed it.

When Mr. Polley, who appeared for the defendants-respondents, hereafter called the defendants, was called upon to support the judgment he found his task intractable. For one thing, there was no clear evidence that the plaintiff's land had ever been compulsorily acquired. There were no documents authenticating any acquisition, let alone a release to the odikro. What, however, appears on the record is that the State Farms Corporation, successors to the Agricultural Development Corporation, were once allowed to cultivate a piece of Yarbiw land. It was, however, the unwarranted extension of this unofficial grant that was realised by the Yarbiw populace. The evidence, however, is that the plaintiff's land never came under the cultivation of the State Farms Corporation. Indeed after prevarication, the co-defendant had had to admit:

"It is not t

JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.A.

"It is not t

MANSU v. ABBOYE AND ANOTHER

Areas of Law

JUDGEMENT