In the case, the apex court of the land ruled that some towns were to be taken away from the Numo Nmaishie Family of Teshie, in terms of their ownership.
While the initial reports indicated that the towns that were taken away from the family were 70, the head of the Numo Nmaishie Family, Daniel Nii Adjetey Adjei, has written to GhanaWeb to clarify those details.
He explained, in a statement, that the number of towns were rather 17, and not 70.
“We would like to put on record that the Supreme Court did not take away all the 70 towns and villages which belong to the Numo Nmaishie family, the court only took 17 out of the 70 towns and villages,” the statement said.
In the statement, Daniel Nii Adjetey Adjei also provided details of the said towns that the ruling was made on.
Below is a list of the towns and villages, all of which are within the Greater Accra Region:
1. Baatsonaa
2. Madina
3. Bawaleshie
4. Mpehuasem
5. Frafraha
6. Paapao
7. Haatso
8. Ashongman
9. Oyarifa
10. Adenta
11. Pantang
12. Danfa
13. Adoteiman
14. Otinibi
15. Ashalley Botwe
16. Teshie Artillery Range
17. Kpeshie Ridge
You can also read the full statement of the family on this issue below:
Our attention has been drawn to a publication of your media outfit carried on the 29th May 2023 in respect of the above subject which you copied from – Myjoyonline.com and has been re-published by other online portals notably among them being Modern Ghana.
I wish to bring to your attention that your headline as stated above and some paragraphs attributed to the court are very misleading and do not represent facts as expressed in the judgment.
The publication alleged that the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision dismissed claims by the Numo Nmaishie family of Teshie for the ownership of over 72,000 acres of land in Accra Eastern regions which comprises about 70 townships and villages in the Greater Accra Region.
Your reportage also stated that the court further directed that the name of the Numo Nmaishie Family be deleted from the records of the Lands Commission as being owners of the 72,000 acres of land.
The Numo Nmaishie family wants to state without any equivocation that, your publication is not wholly accurate as per the judgment given by the Apex Court.
We would like to put on record that the Supreme Court did not take away all the 70 towns and villages which belong to the Numo Nmaishie family, the court only took 17 out of the 70 towns and villages.
Again, the Supreme Court did not direct the Lands Commission to delete from its records the Numo Nmaishie family as owners of the remaining towns/villages/lands.
The Apex Court’s directives to the commission to strike out the Numo Nmaishie family’s name from its records only applied to the 17 affected areas which are:
1. Baatsonaa- Page 22 (Paragraph 45)
2. Madina – Page 23 (Paragraph 47)
3. Bawaleshie- Page 23 (Paragraph 47)
4. Mpehuasem- Page 23 (Paragraph 47)
5. Frafraha- Page 24 (Paragraph 48)
6. Paapao-Page 24 (Paragraph 49)
7. Haatso- Page 24 (Paragraph 49)
8. Ashongman-Page 24 (Paragraph 49)
9. Oyarifa- Page 24 (Paragraph 49)
10. Adenta-Page 24 (Paragraph 49)
11. Pantang-Page 25 (Paragraph 50)
12. Danfa-Page 25 (Paragraph 50)
13. Adoteiman-Page 25 (Paragraph 50)
14. Otinibi-Page 25 (Paragraph 50)
15. Ashalley Botwe-Page 27 (Paragraph 54)
16. Teshie Artillery Range- Page 27(Paragraph 54)
17. Kpeshie Ridge -Page 28 (Paragraph 55) from it.
Below are portions of the ruling which can be found on pages 30 and 31
“VARIATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT
(58) While we substantially affirm the findings of fact and conclusion reached by the Trial Court that the judgment in Suit No.49/80 which proclaimed the 3 Defendant Family as owners of the said seventy (70) villages and land comprising over 72,000 acres was procured by fraud, it must be clarified that, this decision does not affect the issue of entitlement to compensation determined in KLU VS. AGYEMANG III (supra) wherein the then Court of Appeal pronounced that the 3rd Defendant Numo Nmashie Family, own the about 25 acres which constitute the acquisition area. By upholding the Plaintiff’s allegation of fraud therefore, this court must not be misconstrued as having held that, the aspect of the judgment of the then Court of Appeal which proclaimed the Numo Nmashie Family’s entitlement to compensation is also fraudulent. That issue has never been contested since the decision was delivered.
(59) We further make the following consequential orders: a. The pronouncements and declarations herein made in favour of the numerous families and stools, most of whom are not parties to the instant suit, should be treated merely as declaratory. That is, our judgment is not to open the flood gates, for attempts to recover possession and trigger demolition orders, particularly in relation to grantees of the 3rd Defendant Family in respect of some of the lands we have pronounced as not falling within the scope of the judgment in Suit No.49/80. IN RE ADJANCOTE ACQUISITION, KLU VS. AGYEMAN III (supra).
b. All persons who have acquired grants from the Numo Nmashie Family in areas which by this judgment have been held not to belong to the said 1st and 2nd Defendants and 3 Defendant Family and have taken possession of those pieces of lands shall not be dispossessed of their interest. They shall, however, atone tenant to the relevant stool or family as per the decision reached in this judgment and other like cases on them.
c. We further affirm the order of the Trial Court that the name of the 3rd Defendant, the Numo Nmashie Family be deleted from the records of the Lands Commission as being owners of the lands afore-declared as not forming part of the Numo Nmashie Family land.”
The Numo Nmashie Family will, therefore, be very grateful if you could give this rejoinder the same prominence to help erase the wrong impression carried in your earlier publication.
Counting on your cooperation.
..Signed…
DANIEL NII ADZETEY ADJEI
(Head of Numo Nmashie Family of Teshie)
