NANA OKYEKU v. RUBBER PLANTATION GHANA LTD.
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ADJEI, J.A
- BARTELS-KODWO, J.A
- BAFFOUR, J.A
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case arises from a land dispute at Topease near Asamankese involving a family farm acquired about a century ago and later partially given to the State Farms Corporation. The respondent sought recovery of possession and damages for trespass after the appellants workers entered the land to expand a rubber plantation. The appellant admitted the entry but argued it was justified by a Government acquisition published in the Lands and Concession Bulletin and a subsequent divestiture, claiming a registered re-grant. After the District Court ruled for the respondent and the High Court affirmed, the appellant again appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the admission of trespass shifted the burden to the appellant to prove lawful justification; Exhibit 2s schedule showed the acquisition covered land west of Topease village, not the entire town. The appellant failed to prove the respondents land was included, so the lower courts were right to grant relief. The court also cautioned counsel against irrelevant mathematical and foreign case citations.
ANTHONY OPPONG JA:
In June 2011, the Plaintiff/Respondent (to be referred to hereafter as respondent) sued the Defendant/Appellant (to be also referred to hereafter as Appellant) in the District Court, Akim Oda. The reliefs the respondent sought from the District Court were:
“1. Recovery of possession of all that parcel of land situate lying and being at Topease near Asamankese on Asamankese Stool
land bounded by the Asamankese- Kade motor road, on one side by Nkodan stream, on one side by the property of the defendants and on one side by Topease Methodist primary and JHS school;
2. General damages of GH¢5,000 for trespass to plaintiff’s land herein”
The factual basis of the case of Respondent by way of the pleadings has it that the land originally belonged to Asamankese stool and same was acquired by Respondent’s grandfather in its virgin state for farming purposes about hundred years ago. Respondent’s family broke the virgin forest and cultivated cocoa and other foodstuff. About thirty years after the family of Respondent through the grandfather had acquired the land, the then Government through the then State Farms Corporation requested the land from the chief of Asamankese for cultivation of cola and palm trees, whereupon Respondent’s grandfather demarcated a portion of his acquired land to the State Farms Corporation who at first cultivated cola trees and palm trees but later cultivated rubber trees on the portion of the land granted to them.
In paragraph 9 of the statement of claim in page 2 of the record of appeal, respondent pleaded that:
“about 3 weeks ago the Director of the Rubber Plantation (appellant) caused his workmen to trespass on the plaintiff’s land in dispute herein on which the plaintiff and his family have since (60) sixty years ago farmed thereon without any interferences from the defendants or any person whatsoever.”
Respondent also pleaded limitation by statute and conduct against appellant’s claim to the land.
The appellant essentially admitted the case of plaintiff to the extent that Ghana Government in 1981 statutorily, namely by the Lands and Concession Bulletin dated 30th April 1987, acquired a large tract of land containing approximately 1,342,408 acres at Topease, Asamankese with effect from 1st August 1981 and that compensation was duly paid to all occupants of the affected lands. It was so acquired for State Farms Corporation.
However, under the divestiture project by the Ghana Government, in 1990 the land was d