GH - NUNEKPEKU AND OTHERS v. AMETEPE

JUDGMENT OF PREMPEH J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the South Anlo Local Court "A" given in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents herein.

In view of the nature of the case and of arguments advanced in this court, I consider that the writ and/or particulars of the claim as filed should be fully set out, and they are as follows:

"The land commonly known and called Bawe land situate and being between Woe and Tegbi towns is admittedly the property of Agbeve family of Anloga and Woe – which is under the control and supervision of the plaintiffs as head and principal members of the said Agbeve family.

"The defendant who is not a member of the said Agbeve family has been wrongly and unlawfully granted a portion of the said Bawe land (previously cultivated by the late Abusah) by Kwashie Bohlibo Akpalu a junior member of the Agbeve family without the knowledge, consent and authority of the plaintiff and/or the family as a whole wherefore the plaintiffs’ claim against the defendant is for an order of ejection of the defendant from the land wrongly occupied by him at Bawe and bounded on the East by Bawe Tribal land, West by the land of farm cultivated by Tsigui Akpalu: North by the farm wrongly entered upon by Tetor Abotsi Aho and on the South by the farm wrongly entered upon by Denu Kese.

[p.303]

2. A further order upon the defendant, his agents, servants and labourers to vacate any other portion of Agbeve family land known and called Bawe land, Aborme land and Aveglo land wrongly and unlawfully occupied and/or cultivated by him.

3. £G100 damages for wrongful occupation and possession of the said Agbeve family land.”

Paragraph 2 of the claim was amended as follows:

"To remove the full stop after word `him' appearing at the end of claim 2, and to add the following words: Upon the ground that the defendant unjustly and without any authority sold portion of the Agbeve family land at Woe-Aborme to a Madam Ablavi Adika Miheso of Woe.”

I gave leave to counsel to argue a preliminary point as to jurisdiction, and the point argued was that the native trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for ejectment. It was held in the case of Kwamin Akyin v. Essie Egymah1 that forms of action in native tribunals are not to be stressed where the issue involved is clear.

In this case, it is clear from the whole of the proceedings that what actually the plaintiffs sought by their writ was an order for the recovery of possession of land against the defen