<p>Windsor-Aubrey, J. The defendant-appellant appeals against the judgment of the Land Court, Central Province, granting to the plaintiff-respondent, suing for himself and as head of Anuah Tsibo Aburadzi family, recovery of possession of the property known as Wurakes House, Saltpond.(Page 430)</p><p>The title to the property and the means whereby the appellant acquired possession are not seriously in dispute.</p><p>The property is the family property of the plaintiff and his family. In 1942 the firm of G. B. Ollivant Ltd. Obtained a judgment against Breatrice Ellis, the plaintiff sister, and attached Wurakese House, which was sold under a writ of fi fa. And purchased by the defendant, who duly obtained a certificate of purchase. There is no doubt that plaintiff family never consented to the sale.</p><p>The plaintiff, however who was then living in Kumasi admitted that he heard of the sale some time in 1942 and alleged that he promptly instructed his solicitor to investigate and take action.</p><p>In fact, his solicitor took no action until September, 1945, when he wrote a letter (exhibit “C2”) to the defendant asserting the plaintiff title. By this time the defendant had erected a substantial building on the plot of land.</p><p>It seems clear that, although in 1938 a substantial building stood on the plot by 1942 the building was unoccupied and furthermore that at that date only the ground floor of the building still existed and that it was in a broken and dilapidated condition. </p><p>The issue before this Court is whether by laches and acquiescence the plaintiff is now estopped from clailning the property.(Page 431)</p><p><br></p><p>The learned trial Judge stated the issue before the Court to be as follows:-</p><p>“The defendant's main grounds of defence were that the plaintiff is estopped by virtue of the certificate of purchase and by conduct for having stood by while the property was being sold in execution of a decree for his sister's debt with his knowledge and acquiescence and submitted that plaintiff and family slept on their rights.”</p><p>That passage seems to suggest that the learned trial Judge thought that the defendant relied on his certificate of purchase and the plaintiff standing by at the time of sale.</p><p>What the defendant relied on was the conduct of the plaintiff and the members of his family in standing by from 1942 to 1945 and permitting the defendant to erect a substantial building without any indication to him that there was a defect in his title.</p><p>The defendant relies on the case of Ramsden v. Dyson (1). In the course of his judgment Lord Cranworth remarked that to raise successfully a defence of this kind two things were necessary. Firstly, that the person expending the money must suppose himself to be building on his own land, and secondly, “standing by” by the real owner. The following is a quotation from his judgment:-</p><p>“If a stranger begins to build on my land, supposing it to be his own, and I, perceiving his mistake, abstain from setting him right, and leave him to persevere in his error, a Court of Equity will not allow me afterwards to assert my title to the land on which he had expended money on the sup- position that the land was his own. It considers that when I saw the mistake into which he had fallen, it was my duty to be active, and to state my adverse title; and that it would be dishonest in me to remain wilfully passive on such an occasion, in order afterwards to profit by the mistake which I might have prevented.”</p><p>Concerning the first point, the defendant is a Syrian, the plot was unoccupied, it was purchased under an execution sale. In these circumstances the defendant could reasonably believe that he was acquiring a good title to the property.</p><p>Concerning the second point, although the plaintiff may have heard of the sale late to interplead, there was nothing to prevent him instituting an action for declaration of title in 1942. Having regard to the evidence of his witness Nana Kwamina Intsiful, a chief, who admits also to being closely related to the family, satisfied that from 1942 onwards the members of the plaintiff's family were aware of the erection of the storied building by the defendant and deliberately by until the building was completed.</p><p>In this connection the plaintiff's own evidence is enlightening as to his attitude mind. He says:-</p><p>“I passed through Saltpond in 1945. I saw that a new building had been put up on the site of the property in question. I did not stop. I heard the property had been sold and I was not interested.”</p><p>This is not a question of the plaintiff and his family simply neglecting to a claim. I am satisfied that they must, by their conduct, be held to acquiesced, and knowingly permitted the defendant to incur expenditure ;renovating and adding to the building. They have thereby waived and on abandoned any rights which they possessed, and cannot now enforce them.</p><p>I would therefore allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the Land Court, enter judgment for the defendant in the Court below with costs to be taxed. The defendant-appellant to have his costs on this appeal fixed at £31 4s. 0d.</p><p>Any costs already paid to respondent by appellant to be repaid.(Page 432)</p><p>Foster-Sutton, P. I concur. Coussey, I.A. I concur.</p><p>Appeal allowed; Judgment for appellant-defendant.</p>