George Beauclerc Annan & Anor V. Kwamina Bin & Anor (1947)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Consolidated Suits—Trespass—Declaration of Title—Fanti law and custom.

The facts are sufficiently set out in the judgment.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast.

Bannerman Hyde for Appellant (defendant and plaintiff below). Abadoo for Respondent (plaintiff and defendant below).

The following judgment was delivered:

Harragin, C.J. This is a consolidated action in which the plaintiff in the first case (Kwamina Bin) claims £50 damages for trespass in that the defendant Annan broke and entered his house, while Annan in the next case claims a declaration of title to the land and house into which he broke and entered.

The facts are that the land in question was once the property of the late Condua and on his death his family granted the use of it to one Katakyina the son of a woman named Ekua Kraba. Some years ago Katakyina went to Liberia and the house which he had built on the land fell into ruins. About three years ago, Annan the appellant approached Ekua Kraba and obtained permission from her to occupy the land in question on which he put up a new building even though Ekua Esson, the senior woman of the Condua family, protested to him while it was being built.

When this building was completed Annan started a shop in it and put Kwamina Bin in charge. Unfortunately, deficiencies in the stock caused him to discharge Kwamina Bin who, having locked the house, went off with the key of the building to the representatives of the Condua family (Ekua Esson and an executor by the name of Harley) who gave him permission to occupy the land. On his return to the land he found that the appellant had broken open the house and put two other persons into occupation of it, and it is for that trespass that he has sued.

It is perfectly clear that under Fanti law and custom, when the house went into ruins, the land reverted to the owners, i.e. the Condua family. The appellant, however, argues that he is not bound by Fanti law and custom but by the custom of those who live in the district, and the Court called the Odikro of BantumaAkyinim who, though a poor witness from the appellant’s point of view, does say that where an owner permits another to build upon his land, and the building falls into ruins, the owner of the building should be given an opportunity to rebuild before the land is handed over to another, but unfortunately he goes on to say that the occupier of the land cannot hand over this land to another purchaser without consulting the land owner, thus it is clear that under either the Fanti custom or the local custom Annan has no right to be on that land, for under the Fanti customs, instanced above, the land reverted to the land owner when the building went into ruins, and under the local law the tenant owner of the ruins cannot hand over the land to another without the consent of the land

owner, and it is admitted that the Condua family have never given this permission.

The learned trial Judge, quite rightly in our view, gave contemptuous damages to the plaintiff Kwamina Bin, for although by subtlety he may have obtained a right to occupy this land the house that was broken into had, in fact, been built by the appellant.

The learned trial Judge out of consideration for the appellant who has undoubtedly been most unfortunate in his dealings with this land has granted him three months within which to dismantle and remove his building—in our view a most equitable direction, but for some perfectly incomprehensible reason Counsel for the appellant objects to this direction and urges us to rescind it, but as we are satisfied that it is in the interest of the appellant that it should remain and as the appellant is under no obligation to comply with this permission unless he so desires, in spite of the representations of appellant’s Counsel we will, in the interest of the appellant, confirm this direction.

The appeal is dismissed .with costs assessed at £22 9s. Od.

Appeal dismissed.