This is an appeal from the decision of Sampson Baidoo J. who gave judgment for the plaintiff in a case in which the claim against the defendant was for:
“(a) The sum of £G40 10s. being the value of fifteen loads of cocoa which the defendant has wrongfully and unlawfully plucked from cocoa trees on the plaintiff’s land situate at Sankori at a place commonly called Abonyiredesu bounded by the property of Kwabena Poku, and by forest reserve and by the properties of Kwasi Addai, Kwame Nsiah, Haruna and Kwaku Buor.
(b) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant or his servants and agents and licensees from entering or in any way dealing or interfering with the plaintiff’s said land.”
In his statement of claim the plaintiff alleged that on 3 August 1960 he brought an action in the Brong-Ahafo South Local Court claiming against the present defendant possession of a forest land situate at Sankori [p.233] at a place commonly called Abonyeredesu, the boundaries of which are described in the writ and statement of claim. Judgment was given in favour of the plaintiff on 5 September 1960 and this was confirmed by a judgment of the former Supreme Court dated 3 June 1963. In paragraphs (5) and (6) of the statement of claim the plaintiff averred as follows:
"(5) There are cocoa trees on this land in respect of which the plaintiff holds two judgments entitling him to possession thereof.
(6) In defiance of these two judgments, the defendant has audaciously and wrongfully entered the plaintiff's said land again, and has by himself and his servants and agents wrongfully plucked therefrom and made use for himself fifteen loads of cocoa."
In his statement of defence the defendant admitted the existence of the two judgments pleaded by the plaintiff, but he averred that: "the land, the subject-matter of the present suit, is an entirely different piece of land, distinct from the land described in paragraph (1) of the plaintiff 's statement of claim, which the defendant admits has been adjudged to be the plaintiff's property." The defendant denied that he had ever entered the land described in the plaintiff's statement of claim, and he made the following important averments in the statement of defence:
"(4) The land which the plaintiff now claims from the defendant herein is different from the one he has described in his writ of summons and paragraph (1) of his statement of claim; the plaintiff has done this with the sole purpose of misleading this honourabl
