PAPAFIO v. SAM
1960
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- OLLENNU, J
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
1960
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around a land ownership dispute between the plaintiff and defendant, both claiming grants from the Odoi Kwao family. The court must determine whether the disputed land falls within the boundaries of the plaintiff's grant. The High Court retains jurisdiction, given that the main issues involve interpreting statutory provisions and determining boundariesa task not within the capability of a local court. The plaintiff also seeks an injunction, a remedy which local courts cannot grant, further solidifying the High Court's jurisdiction over the matter.
(His Lordship referred to the issues raised and continued):
I observe from the pleadings of both parties that they each rely upon the same root of title, namely the Odoi Kwao family of Osu, that is to say, both parties admit or contend that the proper authority who can validly confer right of ownership, possession and occupation of the portion of land in dispute is the Odoi Kwao family.
Secondly in his statement of defence, the defendant admits the claim or averment of the plaintiff that a piece of land in the area has been conveyed to him by the said Nii Odoi Kwao family. I say this because although in paragraphs 2 and 3 the defendant pleaded that he was not in a position to admit or deny the plaintiff’s said averment, yet in paragraph I of the statement of defence, he has pleaded a follows: "The defendant will further aver that as far as the plaintiff's eastern boundary is affected, the same has been demarcated by a cement wall placed on the land of the plaintiff," meaning that he acknowledges plaintiff’s ownership and possession of land in the area, but contends that that land of which the plaintiff is the owner is limited on the east by a certain cement wall. In reply to that defence the plaintiff pleaded that the said cement wall (pleaded by the defendant) is a partition which he made to divide the land granted to him by the said Odoi Kwao family into two portions for purposes of separate development. This is set out in paragraph 2 of the reply as follows:—
"In reply to paragraph 1 of the statement of defence, the plaintiff says he had his pillars fixed on the extreme corners of his land to demarcate the plot. The cement block fence was to partition the plaintiff’s plot for purpose of development."
It appears from these pleadings, therefore, that for the determination of the plaintiff’s claim the court will not be bound to consider whether or not he obtained a valid grant by customary law from the Odoi Kwao family. All that the court would be required to determine upon the pleadings as far as the grant of the land is concerned will be whether or not the land in dispute falls within the limits of the land granted to plaintiff by the Odoi Kwao family. The determination of that issue will not depend upon customary law; it is purely a question of fact the determination of which depends upon boundaries and dimensions of the land as contained in the plaintiff’s deed of conveyance and the plan attached thereto, the determination of those boundaries on th