SETH KWEI ABRAHAM & 1 ors VS ALHAJI MUSTAPHA BAROUDI & 1 ORS

Introduction

This case raises interesting issues of land acquisition from some families in the Greater Accra Region. There is no doubt that the land in dispute is originally family land. The plaintiffs claim that the land in dispute is their family land with the family being the Paulo and Abraham Family of Awua We, Oyarifa.

The defendants claim that they got the land in dispute from the Agbawe Family of La. The plaintiffs however assert that the Agbawe Family is made up of six gates namely the Awua We, Kplen We, Asua We, Otopa We, Owusu We and Kpobi We, each of which own their respective lands; and as a subset of the Awua We family, the Paulo and Abraham Family also own their lands which include the land in dispute.

All the parties generally agree that in the 1970s, Nii Sowah Oblie (variously referred to as Nee Sowa Obiri, Nii Sowah Oblee and Nii Sowa Obiri) the overall head of the Agbawe Family was the rightful person responsible for the alienation of any of the lands belonging to any of the Quarters of the Agbawe Family.

Plaintiffs’ Case

It is the plaintiffs’ case that in 1976, the defendants approached their head of family, one Paulo Akpor, for a portion of their family land for farming purposes. Paulo Akpor took them to an area of their family land popularly known as ‘binademo’ and showed them the extent of the family land. After negotiations, Paulo Akpor agreed to grant the land to the defendants for a period of fifty (50) years for the purposes of farming only. After the grant, the defendants immediately took possession of the land and commenced their farming activities on the land.

The plaintiffs assert that they recently discovered that the defendants have stopped their farming activities and had commenced the construction of a fence wall around the land. Members of their family protested against the construction on the ground that the land was given to the defendants for farming purposes only. This led to the defendants putting a halt to the activity and they indicated that they would contact the plaintiffs’ family for an amicable resolution of the dispute but this never happened.

The plaintiffs assert that in 2014, a delegation of the family went to see the 2nd defendant in her office to lodge a formal complaint about the defendants’ activities on their family land and that if the defendants fail to desist from their change of user of the land from farming purposes to building purposes, the family would re-enter the land they granted the d