2018
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision to set aside the High Court's judgment and order a retrial due to procedural errors, including improperly constituted proceedings at the Stool Lands Boundary Settlement Commission and premature resumption of High Court proceedings without determining the stool lands boundary.
PWAMANG, JSC:-
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal sitting at Cape Coast dated 23rd February, 2016 which set aside the judgment of the High Court and ordered a retrial. The High Court gave judgment in favour of the defendants/ respondents/ appellants against the plaintiff/appellant/respondent and the co-defendant. In this judgment we shall refer to the parties by their descriptions in the trial court.
A summary of the background of the case is as follows; In 1977, in Suit No LS 25/77 the plaintiff on behalf of himself and his family, the Nsona Family of Enyan Denkyira, caused to be issued a writ of summons against the defendants endorsed with a claim of declaration of title to land commonly called "ANAPAA land" situate at Enyan Denkyira in the Central Region and for damages for trespass. The plaintiff sued the defendants because they laid claim of ownership to the disputed land. The 1st defendant was sued through its occupant and 2nd defendant hails from Breman Essiam which has a common boundary with Enyan Denkyira. At paragraphs 12 and 14 of their statement of defence the defendants pleaded that a stream called "Brobosu" has since time immemorial been the boundary between Breman Essiem and Enyan Denkyira and that the disputed land lies on the Breman Essiam side of the boundary. The court appointed a surveyor to survey the land and this was done and tendered in evidence. However, it was in 1993 that the plaintiff opened his case before G.M. Quaye J.
In the course of the cross-examination of the plaintiff, one Nana Oguamon Atwere II, Twafohene of the Bremen Essiem Traditional Area applied and was joined to the suit on behalf of his family as Co-defendant. He also laid claim to the disputed land. In 1997, while plaintiff was still under cross-examination, this time before Beatrice Agyeman-Bempa J, the defendants, who had changed their lawyer, and co-defendant filed a motion objecting to the continuance of the hearing in the High Court on the ground that the proceedings were caught by the provisions of the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement Decree, 1972 (NRCD 172). They argued that from the pleadings in the case and the evidence of the plaintiff that far, the boundary between Enyan Denkyira Stool and Breman Essiam Stool lands was critical to the determination of the main issue of ownership of "Anapaa lands". Relying on Section 4(2) of NRCD 172, they prayed the court to stay proceedings in the land suit and refer the matter of the b