SAASABI VRS AGORO AND OTHERS (J4/36/2026) [2026] GHASC 4 (15 April 2026)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE SUPREME COURT ACCRA - A.D. 2026

Coram

LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC (PRESIDING) PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC KULENDI JSC KWOFIE JSC ADJEI-FRIMPONG JSC

Civil Appeal

NO. J4/36/2026

15TH APRIL, 2026

NII ASHITEY SAASABI II ...... PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

VRS

1. BASHIRU IBRAHIM AGORO ..... 1ST DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT

2. ALIDU AGORO ….. 2ND DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT

3. ABUBAKARI YUNUS AGORO ….. 3RD DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT

Judgment

KWOFIE JSC: My lords, this is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 1st February, 2024 wherein the Court dismissed the defendants/appellants appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial High Court, Accra. Still dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the defendant/appellants launched the present appeal to the apex court per a Notice of Appeal dated 23rd April 2024 on the following grounds: a) The decision is against the weight of evidence. b) The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that the respondent didn’t need to specify on the Writ of Summons and Statement of claim the capacity in which he instituted the action in the High Court. Particulars of error of law The decision that in a representative action the plaintiff does not need to state specifically in the Writ of Summons and Statement of claim the capacity in which he institutes the action. c) The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in their decision that the respondent’s action is not statute – barred. d) The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in their finding that the land in dispute is Saasabi Stool land.

The Background

By an amended Writ of Summons filed on the 8th of October 2020, accompanied with an amended statement of claim, the plaintiff claimed against the four (4) defendants as follows: a) Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being between Nungua lands to the West, Adegon lands to the South and Adenkesu lands to the East, and the Krowe, Nii Annang Nkpa, Nii Ashitey Akotiapong and Nii Ashitey Kwadzobo family lands to the North covering an area of 2147.15 acres or 874.75 Hectares. b) Recovery of possession of all that piece or parcel of land described in paragraph 8 of the statement of claim c) Perpetual injunction against the defendants, their agents successors, agents and all those claiming through the defendants d) Damages for trespass to all Saasabi stool lands trespassed upon by the 1 st, 2nd and 3rd defendants e) An order directed at the Lands Commission to cancel the plotting of Saasabi lands which was done in the name of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants grandfather Alhassan Agoro f) Declaration that the 4th defendant is not the head of the Nii Annang Nkpa family which had contributed part of the Nii Annang Nkpa family land and put same under Saasabi Stool.

Plaintiff’s case: It is the plaintiff’s case that he is the Chief of Saasabi and the Head of the Saasabi family. The plaintiff asserts that Saasabi is one of the Tema villages and the lands of Saasabi were acquired by their ancestors through farming, hunting and settlement. The fact of Saasabi being a Tema village is shown on the Tema Boundary Plan that was drawn in 1970 by the Regional Survey Department of the Greater Accra Region. The plaintiff asserts that as the

chief of Saasabi, he has sued other people in respect of Saasabi lands and has obtained judgments in his favour, albeit for the people of Saasabi. He states that Saasabi lands cover an area of 2147.15 acres or 874.75 hectares. It is the plaintiff’s case that the boundary between Tema Lands, of which Saasabi forms part and Nungua lands was, at the request of the Ga chiefs to the colonial government in the year 1904, demarcated by one Crowther and it stretches from Sakumono to Saasabifio and which boundary is shown on a map. The plaintiff further asserts that in the year 1928, the Gold Coast survey pillars made by Jackson J. showed that Saasabi lands were located to the North of Adigon. The lands of Saasabi, Adenkesu, Kpone/Appolonia and Adigon share a common boundary at a baobab tree known as “shajo Konsonkonson” The plaintiff asserts that the 1st to 3rd defendants have, with the help of armed policemen, entered Saasabi lands and cleared large portions thereof and are claiming that they got the land from the people of Obosomase in the Eastern Region of Ghana. The plaintiff asserts that the Obosomase people do not have any lands in the area. It is further the plaintiff’s case that the 4th defendant is not the head of the Nii Annang Nkpa family but the head of the family is one Nii Annang Amarh also known as Ataa Asah. It is the plaintiff’s case that the Nii Annang Nkpa family contributed part of its land to the Saasabi stool and after the said contribution, the Nii Annang Nkpa family was left with about 337 acres of land which was shared between the three branches of the Nii Annang Nkpa family. The 4th defendant’s father however refused to share the portion of their family land with his sister (4th defendant’s aunt) and the sister took the case to court, with the 4th defendant and his brother as the defendants, and the Supreme Court finally decided the case in favour of the aunt and directed the 4th defendant and his brother to transfer 59 acres of the land to her.

The plaintiff therefore asserts that the 4th defendant does not have any interest in Saasabi stool lands for him to make a claim in respect of the said lands. If anything at all, the 4th defendant can only benefit from his portion of the 337 acres of land that was shared between the three branches of the Nii Annang Nkpa family and nothing more. The plaintiff therefore prays the court to grant him the reliefs endorsed on his writ of summons.

1st, 2nd and 3rd defendant’s case/defence The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants initially filed their statement of defence on 19th October 2018 and this was amended a couple of times with the last amendment made on 19th June, 2019. As is to be expected, they denied the entirety of the plaintiff’s case before this court. It is the case of the 1st to 3rd defendants that the land over which the plaintiff has sued them is not Saasabi land but it is rather situate at Adenkesu-dzorka village. They assert that their grandfather Alhassan Agoro purchased the land in dispute from the Aduana Abrade family of Obosomase in the year 1977 and he was issued with title deeds which he duly registered in the Lands Commission. Their grandfather took possession of the land and engaged in food crop farming also burnt charcoal and constructed temporary dwelling places on the land without interruption from any quarters. The 1st to 3rd defendants assert that they are administrators and beneficiaries of the estate of their grandfather Alhassan Agoro and that during the lifetime of their grandfather, they assisted him in his farming activities. They further assert that their grandfather introduced them to the Mankrado of Obosomase and after the death of their grandfather, the Mankrado and his principal elders have acknowledged and recognized their interest in the land.

It is the case of the 1st to 3rd defendants further that the Aduana family of Obosomase owns about 20,321 acres of land which stretches through Mensah Bar to Dortsido near Apolonia and it includes many villages and they share boundary with Aburi, Tutu, Ahwerease, Kpone, Apolonia, Kyenku and Prampram lands. The said lands are referred to as New Obosomase and they have made grants of the land to a number of people including one Nene Tormekpe. It is the further case of the 1st to 3rd defendants that Saasabi lands belong to the people of Ahwerease in Akwapem and Ahweriase shares boundary with Obosomase. They assert that Tema lands’ end at Zenu and the people of Saasabi are settlers on Ahwerease land on license from the Ahwerease people as confirmed by the Jackson Report. They further assert that the plaintiff lacks capacity to institute the present action and that the plaintiff’s action is situate barred. 4th defendants’ case/defence Trial in this suit commenced on 8th October 2019 and the plaintiff closed his case on 14th February 2020. The 1st to 3rd defendants opened their defence on 16th March 2020. In the middle of giving their evidence, just before the legal vacation, counsel for the 4 th defendant brought an application seeking to join the 4th defendant as a party to the suit. The said application was heard and granted on 13th August, 2020 by the trial court, differently constituted. This led to an amendment of pleadings and some witness statements and the recall of some witnesses for further cross-examination by counsel for the 4th defendant. After the amended Writ of Summons and statement of claim as a result of the joinder was served on the 4th defendant, the 4th defendant filed his statement of defence on 2nd November 2020. It is the case of the 4th defendant that the Nii Annang Nkpa family are the founders of Saasabi and that though the inhabitants of Saasabi are all settlers from

Tema, Saasabi is not a Tema village. He also denied the existence of any demarcation between Tema and Nungua as stated by the plaintiff in his statement of claim. He further asserts that the Nii Annang Nkpa family had never ceded any part of its lands to the Saasabi stool. He also asserts that the land being claimed by the 1st to 3rd defendants is situate at Adenkesu which belongs to Obosomase. He also asserts that the plaintiff is aware of his ownership of the land in dispute which dates back to about 200 years. The 4th defendant also asserts that the plaintiff does not hail from the appropriate lineage and he cannot therefore be a chief of Saasabi. The 4th defendant therefore asserts that the plaintiff lacks the capacity to institute the present action. The 4 th defendant therefore counterclaimed against the plaintiff for the following reliefs: i) Declaration of title to the tract of land lying, situate and being at Saasabi as described in paragraph 16 of the statement of claim (sic) ii) An order for perpetual injunction to restrain the plaintiff, his agents, workmen and assigns from entering the land. The parties will be described by their designations at the trial court.

Judgment of the High Court At the end of a full trial, the trial High Court entered judgment for the plaintiff and dismissed the 4th defendant’s counterclaim. The court held that the plaintiff had been able to prove that the land in dispute belonged to the Saasabi Stool. The court further reasoned that the composite plan prepared on the orders of the Court clearly supported the plaintiff’s version of the case. The court further

held that the plaintiff as chief of Saasabi had sued the defendants in his capacity as such chief. Appeal to The Court Of Appeal and Judgment of The Court Of Appeal Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants mounted an appeal against same to the Court of Appeal on several grounds including amongst others: a) The judgment is against the weight of evidence b) The trial court erred in law when it held that the plaintiff’s action is a representative action c) The trial court erred in its finding that the land in dispute is Saasabi Stool land and not Obosomase land d) The trial judge erred in law when he held that the plaintiff’s action is not statute-barred e) Further grounds may be filed upon receipt of the Record of Appeal. In a judgment delivered on the 1st of February 2024, the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appellant’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Court of Appeal agreed with the decision of the trial judge that from the composite plan prepared out of the survey instructions provided by both parties, the land in issue falls within the Saasabi Stool land and not Obosomase land. The Court also agreed with the trial Court that the plaintiff sued in a representative capacity.

Appeal to The Supreme Court Still dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the defendants launched the present appeal to the apex Court per a Notice of Appeal dated 23rd April 2024 on the following grounds: a) The decision is against the weight of evidence

b) The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that the respondent didn’t need to specify on the writ of summons and statement of claim the capacity he instituted the action in the High Court. Particulars of error of law The decision that in a representative action, the plaintiff does not need to state specifically on the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim the capacity in which he institutes the action c) The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in their decision that the respondent’s action is not statute-barred d) The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in their finding that the land in dispute is Saasabi stool land. Before proceeding to summarise the arguments of the appellants and respondents in respect of the various grounds of appeal, it is important to critically look at the grounds of appeal of the appellants particularly grounds (c) and (d). At the risk of sounding repetitive 1 set out the said grounds of appeal as follows: Ground (c) The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in their decision that the Respondent’s action is not statute-barred Ground (d) The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in their finding that the land in dispute is Saasabi Stool land.

It is obvious that these 2 grounds of appeal do not comply with Rule 6(2) (f) of the Supreme Court Rules (C.I.16) which provides as follows: “6

(2) A notice of civil appeal shall set forth the grounds of appeal and shall state

(f) The particulars of any misdirection or error in law, if so alleged. In the case of Faustina Tetteh vs. T. Chandiram & Co. Ghana Ltd. & 4 others, Civil Appeal No. H1/63/2017 dated 19th April 2019, this Court held dismissing grounds 1 to 10 of the appellant’s ground of appeal due to the non-compliance with Rule 6(2) (f) of C.I. 16 per Marful Sau JSC as follows: “Rule 6(2) (f) of the supreme Court Rules C.I. 16 requires an appellant who alleges error of law as a ground of appeal to provide the particulars of error alleged. This Court has in several decisions expressed the need for practitioners to strictly comply with the rules that regulate proceedings in the court. Besides it is trite that appeals are conferred by statute and for that matter parties who intend to excise their right to appeal, must strictly satisfy the provisions of the Statute conferring the right and rules of procedure regulating the appeal”.

His Lordship further continued: “In Dahabieh vs. S. A. Turqui of Bros (2001-2002) SCGLR 498, this Court speaking through Adzoe JSC reiterated why appellants who allege error of law as ground of appeal ought to provide particulars thereof. At page 504 of the Report the learned justice delivered himself as follows; “we think that having regard to Rule 6, grounds (i) and (ii) as set out above do not comply with the Rules. Clearly, the intention behind Rule 6 is to narrow the issues on appeal and shorten the hearing by specifying the error made by the lower court or by disclosing whether or not a point at issue had earlier on been raised. By that way, both the court and counsel for the respondents would be enabled to coccentrate on the relevant parts of the evidence in the

record of proceedings and not waste time on irrelevant parts of the