JudgesOpinion
21st Century Restatement of the principle in Kponuglo v. Kodadja
The writer lays more emphasis on how the Kodadja principle has gone under the knife on a couple of occasions especially in this century at the blind side of its numerous admirers
Introduction
On 24th November 1933, the Privy Council delivered a decision that has had far reaching consequences on not only our jurisprudence but ‘British West Africa’ in general. The case was Abotche Kponuglo and Others v. Adja Kodadja1 (known in our law reports as ‘Kponuglo v. Kodadja’ and in this article as ‘the Kodadja case’).
The ratio of that decision is that where a person in a land suit claims damages for trespass and an injunction against further trespass, he puts his title in issue. Sound in reasoning and simple in construction, the principle was cited over and over again in our law courts with admirable ardour and enthusiastic fervour.
This was after its proponents had symbolically ‘removed their knees off our necks’2 following many years of loud and agonizing shriek of ‘we can’t breathe’ spearheaded by Danquah & Nkrumah – an emancipation that was only to become political but far from economic. Unambiguous in context and unsullied in form, one would have thought that under independent Ghana, it would be applied without color. It received some trifling injections.
Read the full article below.
