ACHAA VRS DONKOR AND ANOTHER [2023] GHACC 1137 (14 December 2023)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT KUMAWU – ASHANTI ON THURSDAY 14TH DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE HIS HONOUR JONATHAN ODARTEY ESQ. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE SUIT NO: A11/03/2023 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS BETWEEN: MAAME YAA ACHAA OF H/NO. EO 35 KUMAWU - ASHANTI VRS 1. MAAME AKOSUA DONKOR 2. KWADWO ADAM OF KUMAWU-ASHANTI JUDGMENT The plaintiff instituted the present action against the defendants on 18/10/2022 before this court claiming from the defendants jointly and severally for the enforcement of an arbitration award by Nananom committee chaired by Nana Serwaa Amponsah (Kumawuhemaa) of Kumawu court committee. In a response to this claim by the defendants, defendants responded through their statement of defence denying all the averments in the statement of claim of the plaintiff informing the court that at the said arbitration, they did not participate and as such the decision of the arbitration committee could not be accepted by the defendants. Page 1 of 4 The matter was subsequently referred to the court connected alternative dispute resolution mechanism which also failed. The court then set down the following issues for trial. 1. Whether or not there is a valid arbitration report from the Kumawu Nananom committee? 2. Whether or not the plaintiff is a descendant of the late Opanin Boadu? 3. Whether or not the defendants are descendant of the late Dedewa? 4. Whether or not the disputed farmland is the property of the late Opanin Boadu? In addressing the above issues in the settlement of this dispute before this court, the court will consider the first and the fourth issues together of whether or not there is a valid arbitration report by the Nananom committee of Kumawu and whether or not the plaintiff is a descendant of the late Opanin Boadu. From the statement of defence of the defendants, there was an arbitration committee duly constituted and service of the process was done by the committee to the defendants however defendants failed to subject themselves to the arbitration committee with the reason that they were unable to pay the arbitration fees. It is also instructive to note that per the records from the arbitration report, the 1st defendant on the 15th day of July 2022 was served with the arbitration sermons but rejected the summons. The committee however carried on its work and even visited the disputed site to know the boundary. The plaintiff indeed gave evidence in chief and supported it with arbitration report from the said Nananom as exhibit which was not objected to by the defendants. In the report, parties were duly invited by the committee however defendants failed to submit themselves to the committee the reason that they could not afford the arbitration fee. Page 2 of 4 Per the content of the report of the arbitration committee which was tendered in exhibit; report. The report is valid and that the demarcation done by the committee should be respected by the defendants. The second and the third issues will be addressed together by the court. This has to do with whether or not the plaintiff is a descendant of the late Opanin Boadu and whether or not the defendants are descendants of the late Dedewa? From the evidence on records as admitted by the defndants in their paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7, the plaintiff grandfather was Opanin Boadu who cultivated on the disputed land. However, the said Opanin Boadu married one Adwoa Dedewa who was also the grandmother of the 1st defendant. This was something the disputed parties never challenged. This by implication means that the parties are family members and as such the disputed farmland is a family property which has been inherited from one generation to the other. Again from the evidence in chief of Afia Amponsah who is also related to the said and granddaughter to Adwoa Dedewa and stayed with Adwoa Dedewa gave evidence that they all cultivate on their grandmothers farmland without any dispute even though she cannot tell if the boundaries are still there however the disputed portion is for the plaintiff. She had stayed with the said Opanin Boadu and Adwoa Dedewa when they were alive and is over 80 years of age which the defendants did not dispute. She gave traditional history of the disputed farmland and concluded in paragraph 10 of her witness statement that the disputed farmland is for the plaintiff. The present case could be related to the statement made by Wiredu JA, as he then was, in the case of In Re Adjancote Acquisition; Klu Vs. Agyemang II [1982 – 83] GLR 852, is that “(w)here there is a conflict of traditional history, the best way to find out which side is probably right is by reference to recent acts in relation to the land”. From the evidence on record this traditional history provided by the plaintiff witness will be relevant in the determination of this dispute. Page 3 of 4 Defendants also cultivate on some portion of the farmland but because plaintiff’s ancestry at a point stopped cultivating on the disputed portion, the defndants went onto the said portion and even apportioned some part to a Konkomba person to cultivate. Per evidence on record, the demarcation done by the arbitration committee holds and the defendants are therefore restrained from dealing with the disputed portion of the farm land. It should be on record that the land in dispute is a usufruct which means parties did not acquire it and cannot own it personally. The defendants their assigns and agents are restrained from entering the disputed land to cultivate or use the disputed farmland for which ever purpose. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to cultivate on the land as a usufruct holder since it is a family land. SGD H/H JONATHAN ODARTEY ESQ. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE KUMAWU - ASHANTI Page 4 of 4