ABED NORTEY SUING FOR HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF OSUWEM FAMILY OF PRAMPRAM v. AFRICAN INSTITUTE OF JOURNALISM & COMMUNICATION & ORS

AKAMBA JSC;

On 14th June 2012, the Court of Appeal by a unanimous decision overturned the judgment of the High Court Accra which had granted the reliefs sought by the plaintiff/ respondent/appellant who shall hereinafter be referred to simply as the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this outcome, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal to this court.

BRIEF FACTS

The plaintiff commenced the action by writ initially against the 1st defendant/

appellant/ respondent (hereinafter simply referred as 1st respondent). The 2nd and 3rd respondents were later joined to the suit. The crux of the plaintiff’s claim was for a declaration of title to lands described as Oshiokpo lands covering an approximate area of 777.696 acres as land belonging to the Osuwem Family of Prampram which family plaintiff represents. The respondents denied the plaintiffs claims and by their amended statement of defence and counterclaim sought a declaration of title to the land known as Nii Nartey Borboryo family lands at Oshiokpo at Dahwenya measuring approximately 1,561.932 acres or 632.114 hectares more or less.

The dispute at the trial high court was litigated between the plaintiff and the 2nd and 3rd respondents with the 1st respondent as a nominal defendant. Also at the trial, the 1st respondent institute did not give evidence but merely relied on the 2nd and 3rd respondents being the grantors of the disputed land to the institute. The trial court at the close of hearing entered judgment for the plaintiff on his claims as afore mentioned

On appeal by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the High Court which it set aside and upheld the counterclaim by the respondents in its entirety. As a result, judgment was entered for the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

In this court, the plaintiff has filed the following grounds of appeal against the decision of the court of appeal, namely:

(i) The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law by failing to consider adequately or at all the case of the plaintiff/respondent/appellant.

(ii) The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the plaintiff had relied on exhibit B and B1 as the root of his family’s title to land.

(iii) The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that exhibit A had no probative value.

(iv) The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the trial judge did not evaluate exhibits 4, 5, 6 and 11.