AMIDU ALHASSAN AMIDU & ANOR v. MUTIU ALAWIYE & 6 ORS
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- Baffoe-Bonnie JSC
- Gbadegbe JSC
- Benin JSC
- Appau JSC
- Pwamang JSC
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Pwamang JSC with three colleagues concurring, resolved a long-running land dispute in Central Accra between the families of Amidu Butcher and Alhaji Shaibu Alawiye. The High Court had earlier granted the plaintiffs’ claims except trespass damages, but the Court of Appeal reversed, finding for the Alawiye family. On further appeal, the Supreme Court clarified that the ‘public lane’ pleadings were extraneous and dismissible, and reaffirmed that title actions turn on a balance of probabilities, weighing both sides’ strengths and weaknesses. Giving decisive weight to plaintiffs’ registered 1924 indenture and official survey evidence, the Court found the disputed parcel lies south of the Alawiye Memorial House and corresponds with plaintiffs’ deed. Defences of limitation, acquiescence, and laches were rejected because they were not pleaded, and squatters’ or licensees’ possession is not adverse. The Court declared the plaintiffs owners, ordered registration of the judgment plan, and allowed the appeal in part.
JUDGEMENT
MAJORITY OPINION WAS READ BY PWAMANG, JSC:-
The parties to this appeal are litigating over ownership of a rather small piece of land at Okaishie in Central Accra which they claim through their respective predecessors-in-title. The land was acquired in the early twentieth century when the city of Accra was much smaller and not laid out as we have it today. The original acquisitions of both predecessors-in-title were covered by conveyances which delineated their grants on site plans. At the trial in the High Court, the parties led oral evidence and tendered their respective documents and site plans and a court appointed surveyor prepared a composite plan. The surveyor testified and was cross-examined.
At the close of the trial, the High Court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and granted the reliefs they claimed save for relief (e), a claim for damages for trespass. Upon an appeal by the defendants, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge’s findings on the evidence, set aside its judgment and found for the defendants. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 15th June, 2017, the plaintiffs appealed from it to this court. In this judgment, the plaintiffs/respondents/appellants shall be referred to as plaintiffs and the defendants/appellants/respondents as defendants.
The only ground of appeal is that the judgment of the Court of Appeal is against the weight of the evidence. We are therefore called upon to rehear the case, review the evidence in the record, and come to our own conclusion as to whether the view taken of the evidence by the Court of Appeal is correct. See Akufo-Addo v Catheline [1992] 1 GLR 377.
But, before proceeding to examine the evidence, I wish to clarify the matter about public lane or thoroughfare in the area of the disputed land pleaded by the plaintiffs in paragraphs 15 and 16 of their statement of claim and the defendants in paragraph 7b of their amended defence. The plaintiffs averred that the defendants have occupied and built structures on a public lane that, from the site plan in the document of their processor-in-title, was supposed to lay south of their land. Based on this averment, they claimed in their relief (c) for an order for defendants to demolish the structures they have on the said public lane.
However, even a casual reading of the whole statement of claim makes it obvious that that matter was completely extraneous to the substantive case of the plaintiffs and thei