NANA OWUSU YEBOAH & ORS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL & TECHIMAN MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY

MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.

On 22nd day of March, 2016, the High Court, Sunyani, dismissed the claim of the plaintiff against the 2nd defendant.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:

1. The judgment was against the weight of the evidence

2. More grounds will be filed upon the receipt of copy of the judgment.

It is noted for the record that no additional ground of appeal was filed.

Before dealing with the arguments advanced in support and against this appeal, I will give a brief background of the case.

The plaintiffs/Appellants (hereinafter referred to as Appellants) issued this writ against the Defendants/Respondents (herein referred to as Respondent) for:

i. Recovery of the sum of Gh¢50,000.00 being fair and just compensation for having compulsory seized and used the family land at Sie Tuntum at Techiman as refuse dump for 15 years.

ii. Costs

In the statement of claim which accompanied plaintiffs’ writ of summons, the appellants averred that, they belong to one family and they bring the action in a representative capacity for and on behalf of the said family. They averred further that, their family owns a large track of land at Kaniago, Techiman for which they have successfully litigated their title in the courts. The appellants continued that for more than fifteen (15) years, the 2nd defendant has compulsorily seized a portion of the former’s land at Sie Tuntum where they dump refuse continuously. It is the case of the appellants that they wrote to respondent on 28th June, 2011 demanding fair and just compensation for the compulsory seizure of their land over fifteen (15) years but the respondent ignored the letter.

Again, the appellants wrote to respondent on 1st August, 2011 on the above subject but received no reaction. On 6th August, 2011, the appellants per their solicitor wrote a reminder to the respondent. The latter on 20th September, 2011 replied pleading for time to study the problem and react to same. The appellants concluded that on 24th October, 2011, the respondent wrote to the Omanhene of Techiman inviting him to settle the impasse. The appellants say even though the Omanhene of Techiman is the overlord of Techiman, the land is for their family and that it is not the Omanhene who gave the land to the respondent hence this action.

In its statement of defence, the respondent denied the appellants’ claim and put them to strict prove of their averments.