OWUSU AND OTHERS v. AGYEI AND OTHERS

Sometime in 1971, the Government of Ghana was minded to acquire two parcels of land at Digya and Kogyae in the Kumawu Traditional Area, for the purpose of establishing a national park and a game reserve. Acquisition processes were set in train and the park and the reserve respectively were acquired on 20 September 1971, and subsequently established. But the modalities for the said acquisition have not gone unquestioned, and the circumstances surrounding the lodgment of claims and the payments thereon have neither passed without protest nor criticism. The protest which took the form of a legal suit mounted by some citizens of Kumawu, as the plaintiffs representing the Oman of Kumawu, attempted to halt an illegality perpetrated by the chiefs and traditional title holders of Kumawu in enriching themselves at the expense of the state. The plaintiffs' concern seems to have revolved round the illegality that made the said chiefs beneficiaries in their personal right, of claims arising out of the acquisition of the said lands, to the detriment of the oman itself. They consequently urged the disgorgement of all payments made to the said chiefs; and a refund of the said moneys to the stool's coffers.

The initial success of the plaintiffs in the High Court: see Owusu v Agyei [1980] GLR 1 per Roger Korsah J suffered a reverse at the Court of Appeal. The plaintiffs foundered mainly on the attack [p.500]on their representative capacity and the fundamental viability of the acquisition itself.

It seems to me that the issues provoking serious debate are within a very small compass. They relate firstly, to the validity of the acquisition, and secondly, to the credentials of the plaintiffs, ie whether they possessed the requisite representative capacity to sue. Lesser issues like fraud and illegality would be discussed in the course of this judgment.

The record of this appeal is contained in four massive tomes distinguished only by extensively indifferent typescript and the prolixity of matter not essential to the resolution of the dispute.

The first inquiry is to ascertain whether there was a viable acquisition of Digya and Kogyae lands. There is no doubt that the enabling legislation for a valid acquisition was either under the Administration of Lands Act, 1962 (Act 123) or the State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125). Since both could not be employed at the same time, it is necessary to restate the essential provisions of these enactments to ascertain the appropriateness