|
Land -
Declaration of title - Recovery
of possession - Damages for
trespass - Perpetual Injunction
- Statutory Declaration - Common
boundary - Whether or not the
Court of Appeal misdirected
itself on the evidence and the
law - Whether or not judgment is
against the weight of evidence.
- Whether or not the Court of
Appeal erred in accepting the
Statutory Declaration as
conclusive evidence of title of
the Plaintiff.
HEADNOTES
The family
land at Danchira shares boundary
on the South with the Amanfro
family. Each family has
registered at the Lands
Commission a Statutory
Declaration concerning their
respective lands. According to
the Plaintiff recently the
family granted portions of their
family land to certain people
but when they made a search at
the Lands Commission the results
indicated portions of the
Danchira land has been
registered in the name of the 3rd
and 4thdefendants who
claim to have been granted the
said portions of the land by the
then chief of Amanfro, Nii
Kwashie Gborlor 111. Pursuant to
the said grants the 3rd
and 4th Defendants
have entered the land and have
commenced developing the land.
The defendants have employed
land guards to threaten and
intimidate members of
plaintiff’s family who have
attempted to ward them off the
land. The Defendants responded
that all grants of land they
have made fall within the
Ngleshie Amanfro lands; but if
any of the said grants fall
within the Danchira land then
the same must have been done
within the authority of the true
heads of Danchira. They also
denied employing land guards to
threaten and intimidate members
of plaintiff’s family. By the
orders of the trial court, a
composite plan was made by the
Survey Department using the site
plans of the parties.The trial
court dismissed the Plaintiff’s
case on the ground that he
failed to distinctly establish
the identity of the land the
family was claiming. The
Plaintiff successfully appealed
against this decision at the
Court of Appeal which reversed
the judgment of the High Court
and granted all the reliefs
claimed by the Plaintiff. The
defendants obviously
dissatisfied appealed to this
Supreme Court
.
HELD
We find that
the Court of Appeal did not base
its judgment on the statutory
declaration but on the totality
of the evidence before it. We
have already assessed the
evidence and we affirm the
conclusions reached by the Court
Appeal. From the foregoing, we
find sufficient evidence on
record to support the judgment
of the Court of Appeal. The
remaining ground of appeal that
the judgment is against the
weight of evidence is therefore
dismissed. Accordingly the
appeal fails in its entirety.
STATUTES
REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
CASES
REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
Lagudah vs.
Ghana Commercial Bank
[2005-2006] SCGLR 388
Bisssah v.
Gyampoh [1964] GLR 81
Bedu v, Agbi
[1972] 2 GLR 238
Anane v.
Donkor [1965] GLR 188
Akoto v.
Kavege [1984-86] 2 GLR 365
Nyikplokor v.
Agbodotor [1987-88] 1GLR 171
Agyei Osae v.
Adjeifio [2007-2008] 499
Jass Co. Ltd
v. Appau 2[2009] 2 GLR 365.
In Re
Ashalley Botwe Lands; Adjetey
Agbosu & Others v. Kotey &
Others [2003-2004] SCGLR 420
Anane v.
Donkor; Kwarteng v. Donkor
(Consolidated) [1965] GLR 188 SC
Foli v,
Ayirebi [1966] GLR 627, SC,
Dam v. Addo
[1962]2GLR 2008.
Adorkor v.
Gatsi [1966] GLR 31SC
Fofie v,
Zanyo [1992] 2 GLR 475
Barclays Bank
Ghana Ltd v. Sakari [1996-97
SCGLR 639
Effisah v.
Ansah [2005-2006] SCGLR 943
Delmas
America Africa Line Inc. v.
Kisko Products (Ghana)Ltd
[2003-2005]2GLR 544
In re
Vandervell’s Trust 9No.2) [1974]
3 WLR 256, CA
Donkor v. WIH
[1989-90] 1GLR 178 at 186
Khoury v.
Micthual [189-90] 1 GLR 161, CA
Belmont
Finance Corporation Ltd v.
Williams Furniture Ltd [1979]
1All ER 118, CA.
Martey v.
Botwe. [1989-90] SCGLR 478, SC.
Amuzu v.
Oklikah [1998-99] SCGLR 141
BOOKS
REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
DELIVERING
THE LEADING JUDGMENT
SOPHIA
ADINYIRA (MRS.) JSC
COUNSEL
ANTHONY
BOATENG FOR THE
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/
APPELLANTS.
PETER
OKUDZETO FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
SOPHIA
ADINYIRA (MRS.) JSC
The
Plaintiffs issued a writ of
summons against the Defendants
claiming:
a)
Declaration of title to all that
land situate and lying and being
at Danchira in the Ga South
District of Accra in the Greater
Accra Region and bounded on the
Northwest by Honi Stream
measuring 10,200 feet more or
less; on the Northeast by
Manhia, Ashalaja and Afuaman
lands measuring 51,700 feet more
or less; on the East by Joma
ands, Densu River and Kwame
Amu’s land measuring 10,300 feet
more or less; on the South by
Benyibe Pond, Amanfro and
Domeaba lands measuring 17,500
feet more or less and on the
Southwest by Amanfro lands
measuring 3,500 feet more or
less and containing an
approximate area of 13,774 acres
more or less
b)
Recovery of possession
c)
Damages for trespass
d)
Perpetual Injunction
e)
An
order directed at 5th
Defendant to expunge from all
records all grants including
that of the 3rd and 4th
Defendants relating to
Plaintiff’s land which were not
made by Plaintiffs’ family
f)
Further or other orders.
The writ was
originally issued by the head
and elder respectively of the
Djan Bi Amu family also known as
the Nii Amu family of Danchira.
In the course of the proceedings
at the High Court, the 2nd
Plaintiff died and no
substitution was done so we will
only refer to one Plaintiff.
The family
land at Danchira shares boundary
on the South with the Amanfro
family. Each family has
registered at the Lands
Commission a Statutory
Declaration concerning their
respective lands. According to
the Plaintiff recently the
family granted portions of their
family land to certain people
but when they made a search at
the Lands Commission the results
indicated portions of the
Danchira land has been
registered in the name of the 3rd
and 4thdefendants who
claim to have been granted the
said portions of the land by the
then chief of Amanfro, Nii
Kwashie Gborlor 111. Pursuant to
the said grants the 3rd
and 4th Defendants
have entered the land and have
commenced developing the land.
The defendants have employed
land guards to threaten and
intimidate members of
plaintiff’s family who have
attempted to ward them off the
land.
The
Defendants responded that all
grants of land they have made
fall within the Ngleshie Amanfro
lands; but if any of the said
grants fall within the Danchira
land then the same must have
been done within the authority
of the true heads of Danchira.
They also denied employing land
guards to threaten and
intimidate members of
plaintiff’s family.
By the orders
of the trial court, a composite
plan was made by the Survey
Department using the site plans
of the parties.
The trial
court dismissed the Plaintiff’s
case on the ground that he
failed to distinctly establish
the identity of the land the
family was claiming. The court
specifically held that:
“The evidence
tilts in favour of defendants
because as earlier held in this
judgment, not only does the site
plan not correspond with the
description of land in the
statutory declaration, but the
documents also bear different
registration numbers. Though the
composite plan shows a slight
overlap of land a party seeking
declaration of title must
positively prove the identity of
the land he claims. That is the
position of the law and the
composite plan does not absolve
plaintiff of this duty.”
The Plaintiff
successfully appealed against
this decision at the Court of
Appeal which reversed the
judgment of the High Court and
granted all the reliefs claimed
by the Plaintiff. The defendants
obviously dissatisfied appealed
to this Supreme Court on the
grounds that:
i.
The
Court of Appeal misdirected
itself on the evidence and the
law;
and
additional ground of appeal
that:
ii
The judgment is against the
weight of evidence.
In their
statement of case the Defendants
rephrased their grounds of
appeal as follows:
1.
The
judgment is against the weight
of evidence
2.
The
Court of Appeal erred in law in
setting up a claim for the
Plaintiff and basing its
judgment on that ground
3.
The
Court of Appeal erred in
accepting the Statutory
Declaration as conclusive
evidence of title of the
Plaintiff.
The
Defendants’ Submission
The
Defendants submit that the
judgment is against the weight
of evidence; and by the nature
of the reliefs sought by the
Plaintiff per his writ of
summons, he was required to
establish clearly and
distinctly, the identity of the
land he claims. He submits the
Plaintiff having failed to
establish the exact description
of his land; the trial court
rightly dismissed his claim.
The
Defendants submit the Court of
Appeal failed to follow the
established principle of law and
fell into error when it sought
to substitute the claim of the
Plaintiff for declaration of
title to a boundary dispute and
on that basis granted the
appeal.
The
Defendants contend that the
Court of Appeal suo moto
attempted to reconcile the
inconsistencies in the statutory
declaration and the site plan
attached to it and proceeded to
reverse the judgment of the
trial court. Counsel cites
Lagudah vs. Ghana Commercial
Bank [2005-2006] SCGLR 388.
The
Defendants further submits that
the Court of Appeal erred in
accepting the Statutory
Declaration as conclusive
evidence of the Plaintiffs title
to the land described therein.
The Defendants argue that a
statutory declaration created no
interest or any proprietary
interest in land and in the
circumstances; it cannot form
the basis for a claim in land
dispute.
The
Plaintiff’s Submission
The Plaintiff
finds the judgment of the Court
of Appeal supportable. The
Plaintiff submits that both
parties agree that they share a
common boundary. The Plaintiff’s
family complaint was that the
Defendants have trespassed on
portions of land that his family
has granted to PW1; and
registered same in the name of 3rd
and 4th Defendants.
The Plaintiff
therefore submits that the real
issue for the trial court to
resolve between the parties was
the boundary limits between them
and not a declaration of title
to the entire lands of the
parties.
The composite
plan ordered by the trial court
to be drawn by the Survey
Department showed PW1’s land to
be within the Danchira family
land. In view of this the
Plaintiff contends the Court of
Appeal correctly set aside the
trial judge’s finding of facts
that the Plaintiff had failed to
positively identify the limits
of their boundaries.
Consideration
The
Plaintiff endorsed on his writ a
claim for declaration of title
to a parcel of land as
specifically described in the
writ, trespass, perpetual
injunction among others. The
established principle of law
requires the Plaintiff to lead
clear evidence as to the
identity of the land claimed
with the land the subject matter
of his suit. The authorities are
legion. Bisssah v. Gyampoh
[1964] GLR 81; Bedu v, Agbi
[1972] 2 GLR 238; Anane v.
Donkor [1965] GLR 188; Akoto v.
Kavege [1984-86] 2 GLR 365;
Nyikplokor v. Agbodotor
[1987-88] 1GLR 171; Agyei Osae
v. Adjeifio [2007-2008] 499;
Jass Co. Ltd v. Appau 2[2009] 2
GLR 365.
The trial
court basing her judgment on
some of these authorities
dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim
in these words:
“The evidence
tilts in favour of defendants
because as earlier held in this
judgment, not only does the site
plan not correspond with the
description of land in the
statutory declaration, but the
documents also bear different
registration numbers. Though the
composite plan shows a slight
overlap of land, a party seeking
a declaration of title must
positively prove the identity of
the land he claims. That is the
position of the law and the
composite plan does not absolve
plaintiff of this duty.”
On appeal,
the Court of Appeal held that
there should not be a mechanical
application of the rules on
proof of entire boundaries in
claims for declaration of title
and that each case depends on
its own facts. We agree with
this position of the law as we
recall the decision of this
Supreme Court in the case of
In Re Ashalley Botwe Lands;
Adjetey Agbosu & Others v. Kotey
& Others [2003-2004] SCGLR 420
cited by the Plaintiffs. The
Supreme Court per Wood JSC (as
she then was) held at page 437
of the judgment that:
“I think the
court erred in applying the
principle enunciated in Anane
v. Donkor; Kwarteng v. Donkor
(Consolidated) [1965 1] GLR
188 SC to the facts of this
case. Undoubtedly, the general
principle enunciated therein,
namely (as stated in the
headnote) that; “ a claim for
the declaration of title or an
order for injunction must always
fail; if the plaintiff fails to
identify positively the identity
of the land claimed with the
land the subject matter of his
suit” is sound law, but
applicable only in appropriate
cases. I would therefore not
advocate for a slavish
application of this principle
even where the identity or
boundaries of the land claimed
is undisputed. In land claims
where the identity or the
boundaries of the subject matter
as pleaded is admitted by an
opponent, the elementary
principles which come into play
is that which was expounded
in Foli v, Ayirebi [1966] GLR
627, SC, namely, that where
the averments were not denied no
issue was joined and no evidence
need to be led on them.”
Asare-Korang
JA in delivering the judgment of
the court said:
“It is the
duty of a court to determine
very clearly what the contention
of the parties is before it. In
land case for example, what
exactly are the parties fighting
over? Is it over a whole stretch
of land, a piece of land within
a bigger area, a boundary
dispute etc? The pleadings and
the evidence eventually placed
before the court should be the
guide for making this
determination. And it is this
determination that will further
inform the court of the
relevance, the type and nature
of the evidence needed from the
parties.”
The Court of
Appeal in reviewing the
pleadings and evidence on record
came to the conclusion that the
real issue before the court was
a dispute on the boundary line
between the two parties.
The
Defendants set down as one of
his grounds of appeal that: the
Court of Appeal erred in law in
setting up a claim for the
Plaintiff and basing its
judgment on that ground citing
the case of Dam v. Addo
[1962]2GLR 2008. The
Defendants further criticized
the Court of Appeal that it
departed from the
well-established principle of
law that demands proof of all
the boundaries to establish the
identity of the land claimed by
a party.
We find no
merit in this ground of appeal.
An appeal is by way of
rehearing, and an appeal court
is in as a good position as the
trial court to determine the
real issue in controversy from
the pleadings and evidence and
to draw inferences from the
specific facts that are
established. See Adorkor v.
Gatsi [1966] GLR 31SC; Fofie v,
Zanyo [1992] 2 GLR 475; Barclays
Bank Ghana Ltd v. Sakari
[1996-97 SCGLR 639 and
Effisah v. Ansah [2005-2006]
SCGLR 943; to mention a few.
The pleadings
and evidence clearly showed the
real dispute between the parties
was about the common boundary
they shared peacefully until
each side leased out portions of
lands in the area; and the
Plaintiffs complained the
Defendants have trespassed on
their portion. It would be
prudent to produce the relevant
pleadings from both sides.
Paragraphs 5,
6and 7 of the Plaintiff’s
Statement of Claim states:
5.
Plaintiffs say that both Amanfro
lands and Danchira lands as
aforementioned have been
registered with the Lands
Commission without any objection
in the nature of overlapping
boundaries of or otherwise.
6.
Plaintiffs further say that
there has never been any
boundary litigation between the
two villages from the date their
predecessors made their
respective Declarations.
7.
Plaintiffs say that they
recently granted some tracts of
land within the boundaries of
their family land to some
individuals but when they
conducted searches at the Lands
Commission, the result indicated
that portions of land clearly
falling within the boundaries of
Plaintiffs’ family land have
been registered in the name of 3rd
and 4the Defendants claiming to
have been granted the said
portions of the land by the then
chief of Amanfro namely Nii
Kwashie Gborlor III.
Defendants’
statement of defence in response
in paragraph 2 is that:
2. In answer
to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the
Statement of Claim, the 1st
to 4th Defendants say
that all the grants they have
made fall within Ngleshie
Amanfro lands but if, which is
denied any of the said grants
falls within Danchira, the same
must have been done with the
authority of the true heads of
Danchira.
From the
nature of the complaint and the
area of their disagreement, the
issue we can identify between
the parties is a boundary
dispute on the Southern side of
Plaintiff’s family land.
Accordingly we hold that the
formulation of the issue in
controversy as a boundary
dispute by the Court of Appeal
was in harmony with the
pleadings on record and the
court should not be held back by
mere technicalities. As Atuguba
JSC put it in Delmas America
Africa Line Inc. v. Kisko
Products (Ghana)Ltd
[2003-2005]2GLR 544, at page
579:
“In arriving
at this judgment, I have
considered the pleadings and the
evidence in the light of the
fact that the law of pleadings
has been undergoing changes in a
bid to do substantial justice
rather than uphold mere
technicalities. Hence when an
issue of claim or defence,
though not pleaded, is
established by the evidence on
record, which has not been
objected to, the court would
uphold the same. In the same
vein it is said that the court
would give effect to the legal
consequences following from the
pleaded facts and not be held
back by the formulation of the
pleadings; see In re
Vandervell’s Trust 9No.2) [1974]
3 WLR 256, CA; Donkor v. WIH
[1989-90] 1GLR 178 at 186;
Khoury v. Micthual [189-90] 1
GLR 161, CA and Belmont Finance
Corporation Ltd v. Williams
Furniture Ltd [1979] 1All ER
118, CA.”
The Court of
Appeal after assessing the
evidence went on to hold that:
“There was no
need for proof of boundaries as
is typical of claims where a
whole area of land is in
dispute. The other boundaries of
the Plaintiffs’ land had nothing
to do with the Defendants for
the court to have called on the
Plaintiffs to establish all the
boundaries of their land. Where
your boundary with defendants
is, was the question the
Plaintiffs were to answer. There
was no need for the Plaintiffs
to call their boundary owners to
identify the identity of the
land other than the surveyor who
had the documents (site plans)
of the parties. He did the
superimposition”.
This Court in
reviewing the record of
proceedings is left in no doubt
that the parties share a common
boundary which is clearly
delineated in their respective
site plans. Further, the
composite plan ordered by the
trial court showed that all the
grants made by the Plaintiff’s
family to PW1 were well within
Danchira land. The 1st
Defendant family head admitted
those lands cannot be part of
the Ngleshie Amanfro lands. The
composite plan also showed
overlapping of the boundaries at
a small portion of the two
families where a cemetery is
sited.
We therefore
affirm the decision by the Court
of Appeal not to slavishly apply
the principle enunciated in
Anane v. Donkor; Kwarteng v.
Donkor (Consolidated) supra.
But should
the view of the defendants be
taken that the Plaintiff was
enjoined to prove the identity
of the land the subject matter
of their claim, we would hold
that the Plaintiff succeeded in
discharging that burden.
Contrary to the assertion by the
trial and appellate courts and
defendant’s lawyer that the
plaintiff did not give any oral
evidence on the boundaries of
his family land, we find at page
35 of the record of proceedings
that he did. The Plaintiff in
his evidence in chief tendered
the statutory declaration and
site plan in relation to his
family land and further
described his boundaries. Here
is the excerpt:
“Q: Now tell
this Court the people your land
share boundary with?
A: My Lord we
share boundary with Amanfro,
Ashaladja, Jomaba and Armah
Kwafo.”
The names of
these boundary owners mentioned
in above excerpt appear on
Plaintiff’s site plan exhibit
‘C’and equally on that of the
Defendants’ site plan in Exhibit
‘1’. This evidence was
unchallenged, and as held in
In Re Ashalley Botwe Lands supra,
the Plaintiff need not call
further evidence on the fact.
This Court held:
“Under these
circumstances, the plaintiff was
not bound to produce other
witnesses on the same issue of
identification, for the general
rule which should be clearly
applicable, since the defendants
were represented by counsel is
that, where a party’s testimony
of a material fact was not
challenged under
cross-examination, the rule of
implied admission for failure to
deny by cross-examination would
be applicable and the party need
not call further the evidence on
the fact: see Martey v.
Botwe. [1989-90] SCGLR 478, SC.”
We note that
the trial and appellate courts
found some inconsistencies in
the description of the portion
of land the Plaintiff described
in his statement of claim,
statutory declaration and the
site plan attached to it.
However the Court of Appeal upon
examining these three documents
came to the conclusion that they
were in substance the same.
Their Lordships were of the view
that:
“Inconsistencies in the names
mentioned as boundary owners
should not have been of
relevance to the trial judge
having regard to the site plans
drawn to scale in their
respective documents. The
superimposition showed that the
witness of the Plaintiffs, FK
Asare has the lands granted to
him by the Plaintiffs falling
within lands of the Plaintiffs.
The surveyor testified to that
effect. His evidence was not
challenged. Very significant is
the evidence elicited from the
head of family, Nii Armah Okine
(the 1st Defendant)
in his cross-examination. He
accepted that any land he or his
predecessors has granted which
falls outside their site plan in
their document tendered as
exhibit 1, would not be a proper
grant. He said: “Yes my Lord if
it falls within our land is ours
but if it falls outside our
boundary then it is not ours.”
It is unfortunate that the trial
judge glossed over such material
and weighty evidence in her
assessment of the evidence put
before her”
We find no
reason to disturb this finding.
The Court of Appeal rightly went
on further to say:
“Unfortunately she (the trial
Judge) made virtually no use of
the surveyor’s evidence as it
relates to the superimposition,
vis a vis the evidence of the
Head of Family Mr. Okine. Within
the facts of this case it
appears to me there was no need
for her to have resorted to the
authorities that demand proof of
all the boundaries to establish
the identity of the land as
demanded of the Plaintiffs”
The
Defendants further appeals on
the ground that the Court of
Appeal erred in law in accepting
the Statutory Declaration of the
Plaintiff as conclusive evidence
of his family title to the land
describe therein. Counsel cites
the case of In Re Ashalley
Botwe Lands; supra, and
Amuzu v. Oklikah [1998-99] SCGLR
141
Counsel
submits that:
“In its
judgment, the Court of Appeal
held that the contents of the
statutory declaration presented
by the Plaintiff was not
disputed by the defendants when
it stated at page 164 of the
record of appeal that Plaintiffs
pitch their claim to ownership
of the disputed land on
statutory declaration registered
as No. 2572/1976 at the Deed
Registry and this was not
disputed by the Defendants.”
[Emphasis mine]
I think this
ground is misconceived as
nowhere did the Court of Appeal
state in its judgment that the
Statutory Declaration of the
Plaintiff was conclusive
evidence of his family title to
the land describe therein. The
LINK Word.Document.12 "G:\\NII
TACKIE AMOAH.docx" "OLE_LINK1"
\a \r \* MERGEFORMAT words
underlined above appear in a
different sentence and therefore
quoted out of context by
Counsel. What the Court of
Appeals said while stating the
facts of the Plaintiffs case
was:
“The
Plaintiffs claim to be the head
and elder of the Djan Bi Amu
family of Danchira otherwise
known as the Nii Amu family. The
1st and 2nd
defendants are the head of
family and principal elder
respectfully of the Amanfro
Stool. Plaintiffs pitch their
claim to ownership of the
disputed land on a Statutory
Declaration registered as No.
2572/1976 at the Deed Registry.
They allege, and this was not
disputed by the defendants, that
the defendants’ land is also
based on a Statutory Declaration
dated 14 May 1973 registered as
No. 2748/1975.
Contrary to
the suggestions of Counsel, the
Court of Appeal’s restatement of
the decision of this Court in
In Re Ashalley Botwe Lands;
supra, was accurate. The
Court of Appeal stated that:
“Before I
continue with this judgment let
me make some few observations by
way of clarification of the
statement of the trial judge
attributed to the Supreme Court
in the Ashalley Botwe case. She
said:
“The Court
(Supreme Court) held that
generally statutory declarations
per se are self-serving
documents and so are of no
probative value”
With due
respect to the trial judge
either she misunderstood this
case or she was over terse in
her restatement of what value
the Supreme Court would place on
statutory declarations. Nowhere
did the Supreme Court make any
such statement. At page 452 of
the report this is what the
Supreme Court said through her
Ladyship the Chief Justice:
Generally
Statutory Declarations per se
are self-serving documents and
so are of no probative value,
where the facts contained in
them are challenged or disputed.
Specifically therefore in the
defendants’ case, it only
contained the facts which may be
used to prove their title but it
did not per se, whether
registered or unregistered
confer any title or for that
matter create any title or
proprietary right in them.”
We find that
the Court of Appeal did not base
its judgment on the statutory
declaration but on the totality
of the evidence before it. We
have already assessed the
evidence and we affirm the
conclusions reached by the Court
Appeal.
From the
foregoing, we find sufficient
evidence on record to support
the judgment of the Court of
Appeal. The remaining ground of
appeal that the judgment is
against the weight of evidence
is therefore dismissed.
Accordingly
the appeal fails in its
entirety.
We are drawn
finally to respond to a matter
raised by counsel for the
defendant in his submission.
Counsel submits that: “Two other
courts of competent jurisdiction
have pronounced that the
plaintiff family has no land at
Danchira and yet the family
manages to hop from one court to
another in different scenarios
to litigate the same matter.”
It seems
Counsel is raising a plea of
estoppel per res judicata, which
was clearly not part of the
Defendants case. It was neither
before the Court of Appeal nor
was their lordships attention
drawn to it. This practice is
clearly to be deprecated because
the basic principle of law is
that any defence that is
available to a party has to be
pleaded and evidence led on it.
We therefore strike out this
submission.
From the
foregoing we find no merit in
this appeal and it is
accordingly dismissed.
The judgment
of the Court of Appeal is
affirmed.
(SGD) S. O. A. ADINYIRA
(MRS)
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
(SGD) ANIN YEBOAH
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
(SGD) N. S. GBADEGBE
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COUR
(SGD) V. AKOTO-BAMFO
(MRS)
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT
(SGD) J. B. AKAMBA
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
COUNSEL
ANTHONY
BOATENG FOR THE
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/
APPELLANTS.
PETER
OKUDZETO FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT. |
