JUDGEMENT

KULENDI JSC:

INTRODUCTION:

1. This appeal arises from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, Kumasi, dated 27th January, 2022, which affirmed the judgment of the High Court, Sunyani, delivered on the 8th of July, 2013.

2. For ease of reference and consistency, the parties shall retain the designations they bore in the trial court. Accordingly, the Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant shall be referred to as “the Plaintiff,” while the Defendants/Respondents/Respondents shall be referred to as “the Defendants.”

BACKGROUND:

1. The Plaintiff commenced this action by issuing a Writ of Summons, accompanied by a Statement of Claim, on the 3rd of July, 2011. In the said Writ of Summons, the Plaintiff described himself as the Chief of Dokakyina and disclosed that he was suing in his capacity as the occupant of the Dokakyina Stool and Head of the Dokakyina Traditional Area.

2. He further averred in his Statement of Claim that prior to his enstoolment as Chief, he held the position of Krontihene of Dokakyina. The Plaintiff further averred that though the original land size of the Bui National Park, as projected in L.I. 710 which was gazetted on 20th September, 1971 was One Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty-one square kilometres (1,821km2); the project in its implementation had been extended to cover Three Thousand Five Hundred square kilometers (3,500km2) much of which encroached the Plaintiff’s stool land.

3. Under the pretext that the land had validly been acquired for the Bui National Park project therefore, the Plaintiff averred that his subjects were consistently being harassed, intimidated and molested by officials of the Department of Game and Wildlife. According to the Plaintiff, neither himse

4. lf nor any of his predecessors were part of the eighteen (18) chiefs who were compensated for the acquisition of land for the construction of the Bui National Park project.

5. The Plaintiff averred that despite writing to the Attorney General to draw his attention to this illegality, all relevant state agencies have conspired to drive his stool and people out of their present settlement and forcibly resettle them on a different stool land; a conduct which he deemed to be in breach of the constitutional and customary rights of the people of Dokakyina.

6. Further, the Plaintiff claimed that the State had by an Executive Instrument (EI 70) dated 10th October, 2008, purported to acquire sizeable portion of the stool’s land a