ANNOBIL v. OBOSU
1990
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- TAYLOR J.S.C
- LAMPTEY
- ESSIEM JJ.A
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
1990
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff sought a declaration of title to a piece of land in the Ajumako Traditional Area, bringing forward traditional evidence to support his claim. The trial court found that the plaintiff failed to clearly identify the land and provide credible traditional evidence. Several boundary owners testified in favor of the defendant, undermining the plaintiffs case. The appeal argued that the trial court erred in evaluating evidence and applied incorrect legal principles. However, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing the need for clear identification of land and corroborated traditional evidence. The chieftaincy issue was deemed irrelevant to the ownership claim. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.S.C.
This is an appeal against a well considered judgment delivered by Osei-Hwere J. (as he then was) at the High Court, Cape Coast on 11 May 1983. The said judgment is however so exhaustive and meticulous in its consideration of the facts and so unexceptionable as regards the conclusion the judge came to, after applying the applicable law, that I am inclined to adopt his reasoning without much ado and to dismiss this appeal against his judgment accordingly. The appeal however was argued on behalf of the ostensible appellant by a very senior advocate of the bar and I therefore consider it courteous to highlight the legal consideration which makes this appeal a hopeless venture.
I do not consider it necessary to go into the facts that emerged at the trial in any great detail. That task was admirably performed by the trial High Court judge, Osei-Hwere J. (as he then was). The case is a simple one of rival claims to parcels of land, particularised in a plan ordered by the High Court. The plaintiff at the High Court, who is alleged to be the appellant herein, took out a writ of summons on 9 June 1975 and claimed, inter alia, against the defendants who are the respondents herein: "A declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land called Twaakukrom lying and being in the Ajumako Traditional Area."
The relief here as claimed would seem to be defective for the reasons given by Ollennu J.S.C. delivering the judgment of the erstwhile Supreme Court in Anane v. Donkor, Kwarteng v. Donkor (Consolidated) [1965] G.L.R. 188 at 192, S.C. when he said:
“Where a court grants declaration of title to land . . . the land the subject of that declaration should be clearly identified so that an order of possession can be executed without difficulty [p.386] . . . If the boundaries of such land are not clearly established, a judgment or order of the court will be in vain. Again, a judgment for declaration of title to land should operate as res judicata to prevent the parties relitigating the same issues in respect of the identical subject-matter, but it cannot so operate unless the subject-matter thereof is clearly identified. For these reasons a claim for declaration of title... must always fail if the plaintiff falls to establish positively the identity of the land to which he claims title with the land the subject-matter of the suit.”
The vacillating efforts which the plaintiff made to correct this defect demonstrates his lack of confidence