2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Twelve appellants challenged the High Court’s dismissal of their claims to portions of a large tract of land historically occupied by the Brong Ahafo Regional Development Corporation (BARDEC) Brick and Tile Factory and later divested by the Divestiture Implementation Committee to C & M Clay Products Ltd, with leases arranged by the Lands Commission. The first eleven appellants asserted longstanding possession through predecessors, continued farming and some construction, and argued adverse possession and estoppel. The twelfth appellant, acting for the Tanoso Stool, claimed the land as stool property via an alleged gift from the Susuanso Stool. Respondents maintained that the land is partly State land under Ashanti-era ordinances and partly Stool Vested land held in trust by the President for the Dormaa Stool; appellants were licensees permitted by BARDEC and the divested company. The Court of Appeal held preliminary matters inadmissible for non-compliance with appellate rules, found appellants failed to prove root of title or adverse possession, rejected the 12th appellant’s unproven derivative claim, determined the land’s State/Stool Vested status, concluded the first eleven lacked capacity absent proven allodial title, and affirmed dismissal.
DOMAKYAAREH (MRS.), JA:
[1] This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court, Sunyani dated 29th January, 2019. The facts that formed the basis of the suit are elaborately stated in the Amended Statement of Claim of the Plaintiffs/Appellants who will hereinafter be called the Appellants and the Statement of Defence of the 1st Defendant/Respondent as well as the Amended Statement of Defence of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent. Together, the Defendants/Respondents will herein after be called the Respondents. The case is about a dispute over title to a large tract of land that was granted to the Brong Ahafo Regional Development Corporation (BARDEC) and subsequently granted to the 2nd Respondent by the 1st Respondent following the divestiture of BARDEC by the Government of Ghana.
The Appellants’ case:
[2] The summary of the case of the 1st to 11th Appelants is that through their predecessors who acquired various portions of the land in dispute variously described by the Appellants with specific boundaries, they have come into possession of the various portions acquired by their predecessors. The Appellants aver that not only are they in effective possession of the various portions of their land, but that they have continued with the farms cultivated by their respective predecessors and that though some of the farms, mainly cocoa farms cultivated by their predecessors have withered away, they have cultivated their own farms comprising food crops, palm trees, cashew and teak on the portions they occupy respectively. Some of them have also constructed buildings on their portions of the land in dispute whiles one of them has deposited 1,500 pieces of blocks for the construction of a 3-bedroom house. Another one too has built a washing bay which he has operated for a number of years. Some have also demarcated the portions of their land into building plots and allocated same to prospective developers all to the knowledge of the Respondents without any challenge.
[3] The Appellants collectively contended that before, during and after the Brong Ahafo Regional Development Corporation (BARDEC) carried on its operations on its parcel of land, they were and have always been in effective possession of their respective portions of land which possession and occupation was respected by BARDEC. On this basis, the Appellants then contended that the Respondents’ contention that the parcel of land they occupy forms part of the parcel of land belonging to BARDEC and div