HOME      UNREPORTED CASES OF THE SUPREME

                                    COURT OF GHANA 2001

 

 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE

IN THE SUPREME COURT

ACCRA-GHANA

_____________________________________

CORAM:       MRS. BAMFORD-ADDO, J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

AMPIAH, J.S.C.

ADJABENG,  J.S.C.

ACQUAH, J.S.C.

ATUGUBA, J.S.C.

CA. NO. 12/98

7TH FEBRUARY, 2001

EBUSUAPANIN KOFI ASIEDU                         ….  PLAINTIFF / RESPONDENT

VERSUS

EBUSUAPANIN KWEKU APPIAH                    ….  DEFENDANT / APPELLANT

 

_____________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

AMPIAH, J.S.C.:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal which affirmed the decision of the High Court.

In his Writ of Summons, the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) claimed against the defendant/appellant (also hereinafter referred to as the defendant),

"(a) A declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land known as and called MPREBUA lying being and situate at Breman Asikuma bounded by TUROME, KYIDOMHENE's FAMILY LAND, ASIKUMA BENIN and BREMAN ASIKUMA OMANHENE's LAND which is more particularly delineated by the PLAN attached to the Writ of Summons herein.

(b) Recovery of possession of the said land.

(c) ¢5,000.00 (Five thousand Cedis) damages for trespass for wanton destruction of plaintiff’s tenants’ farms and the cultivation of new farms for his exclusive enjoyment to the detriment of the plaintiff.

(d) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants and/or workmen from having anything to do with the said land".

The defendant resisted the plaintiff’s claim.

The parties gave evidence and called witnesses in support of their case.  The trial court gave judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal which on 31st March, 1994 affirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Concluding its judgment the court said,

“(1) That the paramount or allodial title is vested in the plaintiff. The appeal therefore fails, in so far as it relates to paramount or allodial title.

(2) Usufructuary title in the areas of disputed land established to be occupied by the defendant is decided in favour of the defendant.

The appeal is allowed to this extent but subject to the defendant continuing to pay rent as previously.

(3) The appeal in respect of trespass and damages were not argued before us and is dismissed as abandoned.

(4) An order for injunction granted by the High Court also fails. The appeal against that injunction succeeds and is allowed.

We award costs of 100,000.00 Cedis to the plaintiff/respondent.  Both Counsel agree on Mr. Benin, a Cape Coast Licensed Surveyor to carry out the order in the light of the evidence and the plan before the trial court.  Each side is to deposit 50,000.00 Cedis towards his preparation”.

On what basis did the Court of Appeal make the final orders?  The trial judge had concluded his judgement thus,

“… All told I do say that on the balance of probabilities the plaintiff should succeed on his claim. 

I therefore enter judgment for the plaintiff”.

Apart from the claim for title, the plaintiff asked also for recovery of possession and damages for trespass as well as an order for injunction. Since no damages were awarded against the defendant, it was not clear from the judgment whether any trespass had been committed and if so in what area? Which portion of the area then was the plaintiff entitled to recover? Although the defendant did not plead that his land was called ABINA, subsequent evidence showed that there was land by that name even though this land was included in the whole of the plaintiff’s land. Evidence was also led to show that the defendant or his tenants had occupied portions of the defendant's ABINA LAND which as stated before was included in the MPREBUA LAND. Some of these occupants had lived on the land for some time. Were they paying rents and if so how much?

From  the evidence the trespass complained of and which had provoked this action was at a small place which had originally been occupied by one Egya Ata and subsequently succeeded to by Nsiah. The trial judge had not made any findings of fact on these occupations. He concluded his judgment thus,

“…Fair enough, plaintiff led traditional evidence likewise defendant. There being none to prefer I had to rely on recent acts of possession and or ownership. I have already said that Exhibit 'A' a court document speaks with the voice of evidence. Exhibit ‘A’ says permission to settle the case was given on 12th March, 1980 to report on 23rd March, 1980. And on 25th March, 1980 settlement was reported. The defendant herein knew of Sakyi Appiah's settlement. There is evidence that he was present at the settlement. He knows of Exhibit '2'. He must have brought the contents thereof to the notice of the said Sakyi Appiah. If he did not then whose fault.

At the end of the day Sakyi Appiah gave judgment for the plaintiff. Thus reliance on Exhibit '2' by the defendant I do say has no probative value when one talks of recent acts of possession and or ownership. Exhibit '2' was made in 1961 and Exhibit '4' made in 1980". (emphasis supplied)

The judgment as could be seen, left a lot of issues undetermined. The trial judge based his judgment on recent acts of possession and/or ownership. He relied on Exhibit 'A’, a settlement by one Sakyi Appiah as estoppel. It was not clear whether it was a settlement or arbitration but the Court of Appeal did not accept Exhibit 'A' as creating any estoppel of title in respect of the land the subject-matter of the present litigation.

There is no doubt however that the evidence led by the plaintiff to establish his title to the land was preferable. The plaintiff called his boundary owners to testify.  Both the trial court and the Court of Appeal accepted the evidence.  By whatever description or name the defendant referred to his land, it was clear that that land was part of the whole land of the plaintiff called MPREBUA. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to a declaration of title.

The Court of Appeal vested the plaintiff with the paramount or allodial title in the land.  This, we believe flowed from the fact that there was evidence of long undisturbed occupation by the defendant’s family or tenants on the land.  Since the parties restricted their case to the larger land in dispute, and the trial judge had not made any findings on who had occupied which part of the land and for how long, it became difficult to identify the areas so occupied exclusively with or without permission from this plaintiff’s family. This made the declaration of a usufructuary title in the defendant's unsatisfactory. The order for a fresh plan to identify these areas was bound to create more problems and start fresh litigation. We feel therefore that for a proper identification of these areas, fresh evidence is needed.

We would dismiss the appeal in so far as it relates to title to the land but order that the case be sent back to the trial court for fresh evidence to be taken to identify the areas which either by themselves or their family members or tenants the parties have occupied undisturbed, and for how long.

A. K. B. AMPIAH

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

BAMFORD-ADDO, (MRS.)

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

E. D. K. ADJABENG

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

G. K. ACQUAH

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

W. A. ATUGUBA

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

COUNSEL

Mr. Ahenkorah for Appellants

Mr. Oduro for Respondents

 
 

Copyright - 2003 All Rights Reserved.