In the matter of the protracted Ashiyie land tussle between La Stool,FODAS Estates and SFA Limited as plaintiffs versus Nungua Stool, Agric Cattle and Lakeside Estate as defendants, an Accra High Court has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
Brief fact of the case is that the 1st plaintiff’s (La Stool) claim that his Stool acquired a large tract of land through war and settlement and has been in undisturbed possession of the land over 300 years ago. The 1st plaintiff described the land in which allodial title is vested in his stool as stretching from it’s present location at La on South East, Gbatsuna land, Otano land, Aduman land up to what is termed the Big Pillar, stretching further to Katamanso land on the far North East, on the South West by Roman Ridge and Kisseman lands, Otwoo Okuma land on the North West by Abokobi land, Adenkrebi land all measuring an approximate area of 49,420 acres or 20,000.27 hactares.
The 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs respectively claimed that they acquired parcels of the land from the 1st plaintiff in 2007 and had their conveyancing stamped by the Land Valuation Department of the Lands Commission in 2011.
The conveyances have however not been registered as the land comprising those allocated to them and some other lands in the neighborhood had been registered in the name of the 1st and 5th defendants.
But, His Lordship Dennis Adjei who sat as an additional High Court Judge indicated unambiguously that with his findings per the various evidence and exhibits before him “it is clear that the land granted to the 2nd plaintiff falls outside the 1st and 5th defendants claim and therefore cannot extend their land to cover the land granted to the 2nd plaintiff.”
With respect to the 3rd plaintiff, His Lordship Dennis Adjei noted that about a quarter of its land falls within the land belonging to the 1st and 5th defendants and that the 1st plaintiff which is the La Stool represented by Dr. Nii Tetteh Kpobi Tsuru III lacked the capacity to grant the one quarter of the land belonging to the 1st and 5th defendants.
His Lordship explained saying; “a site plan is a written document delineating the size of a land…” and therefore from the account of the “1st and 5th defendants and the site plan they provided to the court witness to superimpose it on CE ‘4’, it revealed that the land showed by the 1st and 5thdefendants at the site conflicts with the land described on their site plan”.
He proceeded therefore to give judgment thus; “ I declare judgment in favor of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs in respect of the land which I have found that they are not within the area edged turquoise blue” on the main site plan.
However, out of the total land mass of 49,420 acres situate at La Tsui Anaa which forms part of the reliefs the 1st plaintiff’s sought from the court, His Lordship Dennis Adjei granted the 5th defendants counterclaim to some 2,911.53 acres of land by reason of their long period of stay on the land and documentary evidence to back same as against the oral or traditional evidence given by the 1st plaintiff in respect of that portion of land.
But, substantially, the High Court maintained that “1st plaintiff’s land which does not fall within the disputed land is his(1st plaintiff) and I hereby declare title in him(plaintiff)”.
This technically leaves the 1st plaintiff represented here as the La Stool with an undisputed ownership of nearly 47,000 acres of land per His Lordship’s judgment on the La Tsui Anaa lands.
Source: Julian Owusu-Abedi | The New Crusading Guide
