NANA AMUA GYEBU v. MONDIAL VENEER (GH) LTD

WOOD (MRS), CJ:-

On the 28th July 2010, we, as the second appellate court, dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dated 23rd July, 2009, and reserved our reasons for coming to that conclusion. We state those reasons now.

Because the facts leading to the commencement of the original action are indeed very simple, the issues of fact or law that arose for determination in the two lower courts and indeed in this court cannot by any stretch of imagination be described as complex. In 1993, the late Nana Amuah Gyebi XIV of Apowa, the predecessor of the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent (Respondent) respondent, acting with his elders, granted a 61 acre piece of stool land to the appellant company. However, according to the respondent, after his enstoolment in 2001 as Chief of Apowa, he discovered to his utter dismay that Defendant/Appellant/Appellant (Appellant), had encroached on an additional 29 acres of land and was in the process of constructing a wall around this tract of land. When challenged, appellant claimed that they purchased this additional 29 acres from the grantor chief, the respondent’s predecessor. Dissatisfied with appellant’s conduct, the respondent caused a writ of summons to be issued against the appellant company for the following reliefs:

(i) Declaration of title to all the pieces or parcel of land measuring approximately 29 acres situate and lying at Apowa Industrial Area, and contiguous to a 61 acre land granted by the plaintiff’s stool to the defendant company in or about September, 1993

(ii) Recovery of possession of the said 29 acre land

(iii) General and special damages for trespass

Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant either by itself or its servants, agents, workmen, assigns privies etc. from interfering howsoever with the said land.

After a full trial, the learned trial Judge gave judgment in favour of the respondent, a decision which was substantially confirmed on appeal, the only variation being a reduction of the general damages and costs awarded from GH¢40,000 and GH¢10,000 respectively, to twenty thousands and GH¢5,000 respectively. These reversals were based on the grounds that the damages awarded were too punitive and the costs too excessive and out of step with what were fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case.

But, the appellant, still being dissatisfied with the decision of the appellate court, has questioned the correctness of the said decis