OSAGYEFO NANA ABOAGYE III v. TERBA EDUKU (DECEASED) & ORS

HONYENUGA, J. A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Circuit Court, Takoradi dated the 2nd day of May 2012. The said court gave judgment to the plaintiff/respondent.

In this appeal, the plaintiff/respondent would be referred to as the respondent and the defendants/appellants as the appellants.

The facts of this appeal are that the respondent as the head of his family caused a writ of summons which was amended later to be issued against the appellants claiming as follows: -“(a) The plaintiff being the Head of the Mamfole Family of Ankruagin claims against the defendants for declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land known as “Ankruagin”and bounded on all its sides by Corporal Manu/Anhwiafutu Junction – Elubo Motor road, the Elubo Stool Land, the Tanoso river/stream and the property of Nngyoa Ackaah.

b) An order for recovery of possession and damages for trespass thereunto.

c) Perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, assigns, privies, workmen, etc from in anyway interfering with the plaintiff’s said family land.

d) Any other relief(s) as may be just”. The writ of summons was accompanied by a statement of claim which was subsequently amended.

The appellants also caused an appearance to be filed and a statement of defence and a counterclaim which was later amended as follows: -“COUNTERCLAIM

(a) A declaration of title to the said 4 mile square piece of Nuba Stool land situate near Amoalewasuazo and bounded on all sides by Nuba Stool land.

b)Damages for trespass”. The respondent also filed a reply.

At the application for direction stage, the following issues were set down for trial: -“(a) Whether or not the plaintiff is an imposter or is the Head and/or Chief of Ankruagin.

b) Whether or not the plaintiff has the capacity to mount the present action.

c) Whether or not the disputed 4sq.

mile land was sold by Nana Potsin Ackah, Chief of Nuba to the Mamfole family of Ankruagin in 1916.

d) Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to his claim.

e) Whether or not the defendants are entitled to their counterclaim.

f) Any other issues as may be appearing on the pleading”. During the trial, the respondent testified and called three witnesses.

On the other hand, the appellants also testified but called no witnesses.

After hearing the parties and their witnesses, the learned trial judge on the 2nd May, 2012 delivered judgment in favour of the respondent, granted him all his reliefs and dismissed the appellants’coun