The High Court in Kumasi presided over by Justice Kofi Akrowiah has declared that Nana Ampofo Baffour II, Chief of Asem in the Ashanti Region, did not give Nana Fosuhene hearing in revoking Power of Attorney conferred on him to exercise authority in the name of the Stool as the Kyidomhene.

Ampofo Baffour II appointed Nana Fosuhene as the Kyidomhene of Asem Stool Lands to pre-finance legal battles to be fought in the interest of the Stool.

Justice Akrowiah in a judgment dated January 30, 2023, stated that the claims underpinning the revocation of the Power of Attorney were unfounded, particularly, Nana Amporfo Baffour II’s (Defendant) counter-claim that Nana Fosuhene used his name to perpetuate gargantuan fraud and extortion of monies in the traditional area.

Nana Ampofo Badfour’s counter-claimed in a suit brought against him by Nana Fosuhene (Plaintiff) that the latter perpetuated fraud by taking advantage of his ill-health to forge his signature, and collected various sums of money from occupants on the land.

The defendant further alleged that Nana Fosuhene fraudulently used his name to sue the Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly, and connived and conspired with others in pursuit of his fraud.

The Defendant again alleged in his counter-claim that, the Plaintiff engaged the services of a lawyer without his knowledge to threaten ons other that he would be cited for contempt.

Again, the Defendant added that the plaintiff fraudulently and mischievously used the Stool name to caused one Iddrisu Hashim to put up a three-storey building with a market value of GH¢10,000,000.00 for his (plaintiff) son.

By Court

However, the court, in its judgment, dismissed the counter-claim of the Defendant for lack of proof and upheld the reliefs of the Plaintiff in part.

The plaintiff’s sought an order for the Defendant to pay an amount of GH¢2.4 million as expenses incurred pursuing the Defendant’s cases in court.

The Plaintiff also prayed for an order for the Defendant to pay 40% of the proceeds of sale of any portion of land that he successfully claimed through litigation, and claim for interest on GH¢2.4 million.

His Lordship Akrowiah ordered the Defendant to pay GH¢1,030,000.00 as cost, refund, and compensation.

Subject matter

On October 4, 2018, Nana Fosuhene, (Plaintiff), initiated the suit against the Defendant and argued that on December 2014, Nana Amporfo Baffour II entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to pre-finance the legal and other requisite land issues pertaining to portions of the Asem Stool Lands.

It was Plaintiff’s case that, the Stool land in question shares boundaries with Dominase Stool land, Amakrom Stool land and ‘A’Life Super Market.

The plaintiff, contended that, he fought a legal battle with the Ghana Railway Development Authority for encroaching upon the Defendant’s stool land, particularly at Aduman taking over substantial portion of it.

The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant engaged him in order to reclaim those lands, by which he (Defendant) conferred his Power of Attorney on him to take legal action against the Railway Authority and other encroachers, as well as pre-finance same.

He said the agreement was explicit that after the conclusion of each case, the Defendant shall refund all monies spent towards the litigation of the cases to the Plaintiff.

Per the agreement, the Plaintiff shall be entitled to 40% of the proceeds of sale of any land to any person.

High profile lawyers

As a result, the plaintiff also engaged high profile and renowned lawyers to pursue the cases.

The court was told that some of the cases travelled from the Circuit, High Court to the Supreme Court.

The Plaintiff further stated that, he spent huge sums of money at both the Lands Commission and Town and Country Planning for the rezoning and layout of the disputed land occupied by the Railway Authority.

The court heard that the plaintiff, in the course of fighting the Defendant’s legal battles, had his lawyers issuing a writ for US$16,000.00 for balance of legal fee against him.

The Plaintiff, in response to the Defendant’s counter-claims, said that the Defendant stated that he engaged lawyers at the instance of the Defendant.

“It is noteworthy that the plaintiff called Akwasi Afrifa as a witness, and the defendant could have taken the opportunity to cross-examine him on the issue… And the defendant failed to cross-examine him,” the court said in its judgement.

The court further held that the Defendant revoked the Power of Attorney after the Plaintiff had incurred the said expenses.

The court explained that the Plaintiff’s reliefs were granted in part because the GH¢2.4 million cost of expenses incurred was not sufficiently justified.