ADDAE AIKINS v. DANIEL DAKWA

ATUGUBA, JSC

In this case the plaintiff/appellant/appellant hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff sued the defendant/respondent/respondent hereinafter referred to as the defendant, in the Land Division of the High Court, Accra for

(a) Declaration of title to land

(b) Recovery of possession of land lying at Dzorwulu, Accra as described in the schedule.

(c) Damages

In the schedule, the land is described as

“All that piece or parcel of land situate at Dzorwulu, Accra and bounded on the North West by proposed road measuring 87 feet more or less, on the South East by vendors land measuring 85 feet more or less, on the North East by stool land measuring 60 feet more or less, on the South West by a measuring 20 feet more or less and covering an approximate area of 0.09 acre and is more particularly delineated on the site plan attached hereto and therein shown edged pink together with all appurtenances”

The plaintiff who was resident in Canada claimed to have acquired the land from Ernest Augustt, whose grantor Rebecca Ashiokai Nortey was granted the same by the Osu Stool in December 1961. The land was subsequently reduced in size by the Dzorwulu-Achimota road construction from 0.23 acres to 0.09 acres.

The defendant, for his part, claimed that he acquired his land, 0.17 acres, in or about 1984 from Mannan Mills who obtained the same also from the Osu Stool in July 1961.

As to these respective claims the trial judge distinctly found as quoted by the Court of Appeal per Ayebi JA at p.362 of the Record of Appeal as follows:

“I find from the evidence on the issue that the plaintiff and the defendant’s piece of land evolved from two different grants separately made originally by the Osu Stool to two different grantees and further that the particular piece of land on which the defendant has put up the two storey building of 16 shops was the land he purchased from the original grantee of the Stool, Mary Maanan Mills. The plaintiff’s claim for title, in so far as it relates to that piece of land in possession of the defendant accordingly fails and I so hold”.

The Appellate Judgment

The Court of Appeal critically examined the findings of the trial judge with regard to the parties’ competing claims to the disputed land at pp.371-372 of the Record of Appeal as follows:

“It is thus seen that Madam Mills’s acquisition was earlier than Madam Nortey’s by just six months. And in the description of Madam Nortey’s land, it is stated that she shared a common boundar