QUARTEY & ORs v. CENTRAL SERVICES & ORs AKYEMAH

In this case, both the trial High Court and the Court of Appeal have found against the plaintiffs on the facts. Those findings are that the plaintiffs are not owners of the land claimed on the writ but rather that they are licensees of the second defendant’s family. In Kuma v Kuma (1936) 5 WACA 4 at 8-9 their Lordships of the Privy Council described the nature of this kind of customary land holding as follows:

It appears therefore, that among the natives, occupation of land is frequently allowed for the purpose of cultivation but without the ownership of the land being parted with. The owner of the land, being willing to allow such occupation so long as no adverse claim is made by the occupier; the occupier knowing that he can use the land as long as he likes provided he recognises the title of the owner.

I have not been persuaded by the arguments canvassed before us that the findings of fact made by the learned trial judge and concurred in by the Court of Appeal are so perverse as to be deserving of a review. The only issue is whether that part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which declares the second defendant to be entitled to claim forfeiture of the licence should stand.

By custom a tenant or licensee is liable to have his tenancy or licence forfeited if he denies the title of his grantor: Borketey v Larkai (1953) DC (Land) ’52-’55, 142; Ameoda v Pordier [1967] GLR 479, CA. But the court has power, in a proper case, to grant relief against forfeiture and impose an injunction instead. In Ayikai II v Okai II (1953) DC (Land) ’52-’55, 146 in spite of earlier litigation which established that the stool of the plaintiff was the owner of the land and the family of the defendants only a caretaker for the stool, the defendants persisted in making grants without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff and prevented him and his messengers from entering the land. In an action for the ejectment of the defendants from the land, recovery of possession and an injunction, the court took note of the hardship that would be caused in ejecting members of the family of the defendants from the land and granted only an injunction restraining them from alienating any portion of the land without the consent of the plaintiff.

In the High Court Wiredu J rejected the claim for forfeiture in these terms:

Throughout the trial of this case I observed that the plaintiffs seem to lack knowledge about how the Owoo lands were acquired and its exact