The only evidence adduced by the plaintiffs which could remotely be regarded as notice to the defendants was that of Tetteh Kwao, who said that he warned the defendants not to continue farming when he found them on the land. It is clear therefore that this warning was given after the defendants had acquired the land. In my view the “good faith” stipulated by the Act must relate to the time of the acquisition and not to what happened afterwards.
Whether a protected farmer may be ordered to attorn tenant
Learned counsel next argued that the learned judge having rightly interpreted the Farm Lands (Protection) Act, 1962, he was only to give his reliefs in accordance with what has been set out in the Act and no more. He contended therefore that the order asking the defendants to attorn tenant to the plaintiffs was legally wrong. I am of the view that this argument is a sound one. The Act provides in section 2 (2) that where a farmer is found to be protected the court shall “make an order providing that the acquisition by the farmer shall be deemed for all purposes to have operated to confer on him the title to the land.” Therefore the court having applied the Act and awarded compensation to the plaintiffs, it was not competent for it to order that the defendants should attorn tenant at the same time. Doing so would defeat the intent and object of the Act.
