SIMON HOPPER VS KWESI KWETIA

SACKEY TORKORNOO CJ:

Background

[1] The Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”)obtained judgment from the High Court sitting in Cape Coast against the Defendant/appellant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as “defendant”) on 15th January 2021. The defendant appealed against the judgment to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the defendant appealed to this court.

This court dismissed the said appeal and states the reasons for the dismissal hereunder.

CASE OF PLAINTIFF[2] The plaintiff brought this action on his own behalf and as seen from the title to the suit, on behalf of his Royal Nsona Family of Nkanfoa.

In his statement of claim, the plaintiff stated that he is an elder of the said family and since no head of the family had been appointed after the demise of the former head of family, Nana Kobina Essilfie in 2016, he commenced the action on behalf of it.

He averred that his ancestors have been in occupation of Nkanfoa lands and same had been attached to the Royal Nsona family from time immemorial.

He also claimed that his family had farmed on Nkanfoa lands for their livelihood without any interference from any person/s. It was his case that the defendant is a member of a different section of the Royal Nsona family at Nkanfoa.

Plaintiff claimed that the two sections of Royal Nsona family members have co-existed peacefully on Nkanfoa lands with each family fully aware of the boundaries of its lands. [3] It was his complaint that in 2014 the defendant, without reference to farm owners of the Royal Nsona family and without the consent or concurrence of the family, caused the marking up or demarcation of a road on the said land.

This caused damages to the plaintiff’s farm products and acacia trees.

On enquiry from the family head at the time of this alleged infraction, the plaintiff was informed that the defendant had not been authorized to undertake the acts.

Despite being advised against going on with the acts complained of, the defendant further sold out portions of the disputed land to developers who had cleared the lands for development and also caused damage to farm produce and trees. [4] It is this insistence on continuing with these acts that caused the Plaintiff to commence the action on 16th January 2017 and for the following reliefs: a. A declaration that the Defendant can