YAMIKEH ARDIE PER ANGUAH BENNIEH of BAKANTA v. KWAMI (AWOONOR) PALM WINE TAPPER of Savuleh Bakanta and CHIEF ABAKA KANGA II OF AMPANL
1951
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- Benson, Ag. J
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
1951
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an appeal against the judgment of the Native Court "B" of Eastern Nzima State, which favored the defendants-respondents. The plaintiff-appellant claimed damages for alleged trespass on "Savuleh" lands. The litigation over the land has persisted since 1923, with previous decisions neither confirming the plaintiff as the landowner but as having farming rights. The present appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove that the alleged trespassed land was within his farming rights per the 1923 judgment, or to provide sufficient evidence of trespass and damages. Additionally, the principle of res judicata was highlighted, and it was emphasized that a landowner has rights against a tenant to cut palm-trees.
Judgment:
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Native Court " B " of Eastern Nzima State which gave judgment in favour of the defendants-respondents.
The claim is one of £50 damages for trespass by respondents to "Savuleh" lands in the possession of the appellants, by cutting down palm-trees and doing damage to the land, also for an Injunction.
The parties have litigated over the land intermittently since the year 1923 and this case depends to a certain extent on the interpretation of the judgment of the Native Court at Attuaboe delivered on 23rd October, 1923 and affirmed by the Privy Council in 1930 (1). The judgment of the Court of Attuaboe was considered by the West African Court of Appeal in their judgment of the 10th Feb. 1950, Civil Appeal No. 63/1948 (2); the Appeal Court found some difficulty in giving an exact meaning to the somewhat ambiguous judgment of the Court of Attuaboe, but made a definite finding.
The present Plaintiff-Appellant sued as possessor of Savuleh Lands; in his evidence he says he is the owner of the land which is his bona fide property; that is obviously wrong; it is clear that since 1923 the plaintiff-appellant was never considered the owner of the land, but merely had the right to retain farms on the land, of which the defendant is the owner, or one of the owners.
The plaintiff-appellant, in order to succeed in the court below, had to prove that the land alleged to have been trespassed on was part of the land over which he has the right to farm according to the judgment of the Native Court in 1923; he also had to prove the trespass and damages.
According to the judgment of 1923 the plaintiff-appellant was found entitled to retain the farms he then had; there was no evidence in the court below to prove that the place where defendant-respondent cut down palmtrees was on the farms which he possessed in 1923; there is no evidence as to the extent of the farms held in 1923 or their present extent; this was also found in the judgment of West African Court of Appeal of 10th February, 1950. It was for the plaintiff-appellant to prove that fact, and in my view he failed to do so. That alone would have been sufficient for the court below to give a finding in favour of the defendants-respondents, but I think there are other reasons also.
The plaintiff-appellant claims damages for trespass by cutting down palm-trees and causing considerable damage to his farm; in his evidence he states not only that the defendant-respondent