<p>McCarthy, Ag. C.J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Land Court, Accra, in which the plaintiff-appellant was refused a declaration of title to a plot of land in Accra on the ground that even if he were formerly owner, he had slept on his rights, and allowed the first defendant-respondent to remain for a long period in possession and expend moneys in improving the land in the belief that he had title thereto, and that it would be inequitable now for the plaintiff- appellant to assert his former rights as owner. The learned Judge also held that the defendants-respondents had proved a possessory title.</p><p>The plaintiff-appellant sued for the declaration as head of the Brazilian Aruna family. He admits that the first defendant-respondent was in possession from 1915 until 1945 and that in 1915 the latter erected upon the plot a cement dwelling-house, which was occupied by him until about 1937 when it was demolished and replaced by him by a larger cement building. The plaintiff-appellant contends that from the outset he challenged the first defendant-respondent’s right to build and that he took various steps to remove him from the land.</p><p>On the other hand, the first defendant-respondent claims title through his father and says that the first time he became aware that the plaintiff-appellant laid claim to the land was in 1945 after he sold the property to the second defendant-respondent. On this issue of fact we see no ground for disturbing the finding of the trial Judge in favour of the defendants-respondents.</p><p>The equitable jurisdiction exercised by him in refusing to grant relief to the plaintiff-appellant is based on section 74 of the Courts Ordinance which provides in effect that native customary law will not be recognised by the Courts where to do so would be contrary to equity and good conscience. On the strength of this the view was expressed by the Full Court in the Bokitsi Concession Enquiry (1902, Renner, 239) that a former owner would not be allowed to claim land where he had stood by for a long time while someone else occupied the land and incurred pecuniary commitments under the impression that he was entitled to the land, notwithstanding that prescription is unknown to native customary law and that no statutory limitations applies to the case. This obitet dictum has been followed-in many decisions, and the rule it enunciated is well established. The period of time which will justify the Court in acting upon it varies greatly according to the circumstances, including the nature of the improvements effected on the land. Where there are crops naturally a longer period would ordinarily be required than in the case of a substantial building. Upon the learned Judge’s finding on the relevant facts, it was competent for him to arrive at his decision on this issue. We are also of opinion that he was similarly justified in holding that the defendants-respondents had proved a possessory title. The appeal will therefore be dismissed, and the judgment in the Court below affirmed, with costs assessed at £41 5s. 6d.</p><p>Appeal dismissed.</p>