|
Property -
Joint ownership – Agreement -
Contract of sale - Recovery of
property. Credibility of
evidence – Whether or not the
said sale was null and void -
Whether or not the said property
is jointly owned by both
plaintiff and the 1st
defendant
HEADNOTES
The appellant
(as plaintiff) commenced an
action in the High Court against
the respondent the (2nd
defendant therein) and her
husband, the 1st
defendant claiming declaration
that the purported sale of H/No.
A 725; Dansoman, Accra by the 1st
defendant to the 2nd
defendant without the consent
and concurrence of the plaintiff
is null and void as the said
property is jointly owned by
both plaintiff and the 1st
defendant at the end of the
proceedings before the High
Court; it entered judgment for
the respondent, The Court of
Appeal however in its decision
virtually endorsed all the
findings of fact and the law
applied by the learned trial
judge and dismissed the appeal
HELD
The findings
are clearly supported by the
evidence on record and we do not
feel able to disturb same. The
Court of Appeal concurred in the
findings of fact made by the
trial judge, It is well settled
that this court would not
ordinarily interfere with the
concurrent findings of the two
lower courts unless it is
established with absolute
clearness that some blunder or
error in the face of a crucial
documentary evidence or a wrong
application of some principle of
evidence or a finding made based
on some erroneous proposition of
law, We would therefore dismiss
the appeal in its entirety as
being devoid of merit and affirm
the decision of the court of
appeal.
STATUTES
REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
CASES
REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
TUAKWA V.
BOSOM 2001-2002 SCGLR 61.
ACHORO V
AKANFELA 1996- 1997 SCGLR 209
OBRASIWA II V
OTU 1996-1997 SCGLR 618
BOOKS
REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
DELIVERING
THE LEADING JUDGMENT
AKOTO BAMFO
(MRS) J.S.C.:-
COUNSEL
PHILIPA
DENNES ESQ. FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.
FRIMPONG
BOADU ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS
/RESPONDENTS /RESPONDENTS.
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
AKOTO BAMFO
(MRS) J.S.C.:-
On the 26th
of November 2009, the Court of
Appeal, by a unanimous decision
dismissed in its entirety the
appeal filed by the appellant
herein against the judgment of
the High Court dated the 14th
of February of 2005. The said
judgment was entered in favour
of the respondent before this
court.
The appellant
(as plaintiff) commenced an
action in the High Court against
the respondent the (2nd
defendant therein) and her
husband, the 1st
defendant claiming these
reliefs;
(a)
A
declaration that the purported
sale of H/No. A 725; Dansoman,
Accra by the 1st
defendant to the 2nd
defendant without the consent
and concurrence of the plaintiff
is null and void as the said
property is jointly owned by
both plaintiff and the 1st
defendant.
(b)
An
injunction restraining the
defendants, their servants,
agents or assigns from
interfering with the plaintiff’s
use of the said property.
(c)
An
order for the recovery of the
said property.
The events
culminating in the instant
appeal have been faithfully
recounted by both the High Court
and Court of Appeal in their
judgments. We do not therefore
propose to set them out in
extenso; suffice it to say that
at the end of the proceedings
before the High Court; it
entered judgment for the
respondent. The appellant lodged
a protest against the High Court
decision by filling a Notice of
Appeal consisting of 4 grounds
seeking for a reversal of the
whole judgment of the 14th
of February 2005.
The Court of
Appeal however in its decision
virtually endorsed all the
findings of fact and the law
applied by the learned trial
judge and dismissed the appeal.
The Appeals Court however
reversed the specific findings
of the trial judge that Exhibit
‘A’, the agreement between the
appellant and her husband, the 1st
defendant, was proof of the
appellant’s joint ownership of
House no. A 725, Dansoman, the
subject matter of the
proceedings.
Being
naturally aggrieved by the
decision of the Court of Appeal,
the appellant filed this instant
appeal. She premised her attack
on 3 main grounds – namely
(a)
The
learned judges erred in
rejecting the document Exhibit A
as a fair representation of what
went on between the parties
thereto and thus as evidence of
plaintiff/Appellants entitlement
to a moiety of the property in
dispute.
(b)
The
learned trial judges erred in
using the contents of the said
Exhibit A which they rejected as
evidence of the lack of
credibility of evidence of
plaintiff/Appellant that she had
no knowledge of the transaction
between the defendants.
(c)
The
learned trial judges misdirected
themselves in rejecting
circumstantial evidence as to
the true nature of the
transaction between the parties
in favour of a mere reliance on
the contents of the documents
between the two.
Even though
she indicated that she would
file additional grounds no such
processes were filed. The thrust
of the appellant’s complaint was
directed at the specific
findings of facts and the
inferences drawn which were
generally within the provinces
of both the trial and appellate
court
Largely, the
Court of appeal confirmed the
findings of the fact and the law
applied by the learned trial
judge with the exception of his
findings on Exhibit A, the
agreement between the appellant
and her husband on their joint
ownership of the Dansoman
property.
We are of the
firm view that the Court of
Appeal rightly reversed the
findings of the trial judge on
the issue, for the appellant,
having alleged that the judgment
was against the weight of the
evidence, the Court of Appeal
was entitled to analyze the
entire record of appeal, taking
into account the testimonies and
all the documentary evidence and
to satisfy itself that the
findings were borne out by the
evidence on record. TUAKWA V.
BOSOM 2001-2002 SCGLR 61.
The findings
are clearly supported by the
evidence on record and we do not
feel able to disturb same.
The Court of Appeal concurred in
the findings of fact made by the
trial judge, It is well settled
that this court would not
ordinarily interfere with the
concurrent findings of the two
lower courts unless it is
established with absolute
clearness that some blunder or
error in the face of a crucial
documentary evidence or a wrong
application of some principle of
evidence or a finding made based
on some erroneous proposition of
law. ACHORO V AKANFELA 1996-
1997 SCGLR 209 and OBRASIWA II V
OTU 1996-1997 SCGLR 618. None of
the above criteria was
satisfied by the appellants. We
would therefore dismiss the
appeal in its entirety as being
devoid of merit and affirm the
decision of the court of appeal.
(SGD)
V. AKOTO BAMFO (MRS)
JUSTICE
OF THE SUPREME COURT
(SGD) W. A. ATUGUBA
JUSTICE
OF THE SUPREME COURT
(SGD) S. O. A.
ADINYIRA (MRS)
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
(SGD)
ANIN YEBOAH
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
(SGD) P. BAFFOE BONNIE
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
COUNSEL
PHILIPA
DENNES ESQ. FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.
FRIMPONG
BOADU ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS
/RESPONDENTS /RESPONDENTS. |
