ADWOA KONTOR & 2 ORS v. AKUA ADDAE
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- E. K. Ayebi (Presiding), JA
- Gertrude Torkornoo, (Mrs.), JA
- Angelina M. Domakyaareh (Mrs.), JA
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around a dispute over a farmstead at Odurokrom. The plaintiff sought title, recovery of possession, and damages for trespass. The initial judgment favored the plaintiff, and the defendants appealed. Key issues included the proper evaluation of evidence, land boundaries, and previous judgments. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, validating the plaintiff's claim. Key legal principles included the burden of proof in possession disputes, the implications of interim injunctions, and considerations for illiterate litigants.
AYEBI, JA 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of a Kumasi Circuit Court dated 27th April 2012.
The parties filed the pleadings themselves and conducted their respective cases without the assistance of a lawyer.
2. The claim of the plaintiff at the trial is for: (1) Declaration of title to all that piece of parcel of farmstead situate lying and being at a place commonly known and called ODUROKROM at Mpatasie sharing boundaries with the properties of the late Kwabena Boakye, Addo, Abena Nyarko and old Apimanim motor road to Ama Amponsah’s farmstead which said farmstead the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants have unlawfully trespassed and cultivated foodstuffs farm on it without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. (2) Recovery of possession of the said farmstead from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants. (3) Damages for unlawful trespass. (4) An order of interim injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, assigns and workmen from entering the land in dispute till the final determination of the suit.
3. After hearing the evidence of the parties and their witnesses, the court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
On 12th July 2012, the defendants appealed against the judgment on the sole ground that the judgment is against the weight of evidence on record.
4. The reliefs the plaintiff endorsed on her writ of summons show that she claims the disputed land at Odurokrom as the bonafide owner.
In a similar claim in Darfour Jnr.
vrs Boateng [1977] 2 GLR 191, Kingley-Nyinah JA at page 193 observed that: “It is a well established tenet of the law, as enunciated in Kponuglo vrs Kodadja [1933] 2 WACA 24, PC that to succeed on a claim for title and possession, it is incumbent upon the party suing therefore to show, not only that he was the true owner of the portion of land he makes the subject-matter of his action; but also, and equally important, he must in addition demonstrate that both before, and then at, the time he instituted proceedings against his opponent, the exclusive possession of the parcel of land in dispute had been, and was, in fact vested first, in his predecessors-in-title and then, laterly, in himself.
Upon him rests, squarely, therefore, the responsibility of satisfying the trial court that he was in actual possession of that parcel of land when his rights and his interest in the said area were violated to trigger off the action”. 5. As to the requisite standard of proof (or burden of persuasion), the learned judge stated