ALPHA BETA EDUCATIONAL CENTRE LTD VS REVEREND MAMA MERCY & 10 ORS
2024
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- HENRY A. KWOFIE JSC (PRESIDING)
- P. BRIGHT MENSAH JA
- BARTELS-KODWO (MRS) JA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
2024
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff appealed against a High Court judgment regarding land ownership and possession, asserting errors in the lower court’s decision, including not awarding possession despite the title declaration and misinterpreting a 1963 judgment. The defendants also appealed, citing similar grounds. Upon review, the appellate court found merit in the plaintiff's arguments, noting that the trial court failed to differentiate between the consolidated suits and misapplied legal principles regarding possession and title. Consequently, the appellate court granted the plaintiff possession of the land, issued an injunction against the defendants, awarded damages for trespass, and ordered costs in favor of the plaintiff.
BRIGHT MENSAH JA:
The plaintiff/appellant herein simply referred to as the plaintiff, has launched the instant appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Accra [Land Division] delivered 5th of March, 2021 in consolidated suits numbered LD/0794/16 and FAL/558/14, respectively tried by the said court.
The judgment appears on pp 77-114 of Vol.
4 of the record of appeal [roa]. Apparently dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal on a number of grounds, namely:
1. The trial judge after affirming that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of title to the disputed land erred in not granting the relief of possession.
2. The trial judge erred by holding that the defendants were in possession of the land.
3. The trial judge erred when he dispensed with the compo-site plan which had been drawn to aid the court in arriving at a just judgment.
4. The trial judge erred in holding that the Yao Duade case in which judgment was given in 1963 granted possession of Akokorforto lands to the Sempe stool.
5. That the judgment was against the weight of evidence.
6. Further grounds of appeal will be filed upon receipt of a copy of the record of proceedings.
See: pp 115-117 Vol.
4 [roa]. So far, the plaintiff has never filed further grounds of appeal.
Notice of appeal by defendants: Significantly, we also have on record, a notice of appeal filed by defendants describing themselves as Defendants/Counter Appellants on 24/09/2021 with the leave of the lower court against the judgment of Amo-Yartey J, the same judgment the plaintiff has appealed against, complaining that: 1. The judgment is against the weight of evidence.
2. The learned trial judge erred when he held that Acolatse J’s judgment of 1963 covered the disputed land, and yet stated that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of title to the disputed land.
3. The learned trial judge erred, in that after affirming Acolatse J’s judgment of 1963 in the Yao Duade case which granted possession of Akokoforto lands to the Sempe Stool, proceeded to decree title in favour of the plaintiff.
4. The learned trial judge erred by holding that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of title to the disputed land.
5. The learned trial judge erred after holding that he does not have the slightest power to deviate from the decision of the Supreme Court per the hierarchy of court as he is bound to follow the decision of the Supreme Court, fai