ANTHONY KWEI TEIKO v. JERRY ZENOVO
May 5, 2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- D.D ADJEI, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- J. DODOO, J.A.
- N. ARYENE, J.A.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
May 5, 2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In a Ghana Court of Appeal decision, Presiding Justice Dennis Adjei JA concurred in Novisi Aryene JA’s lead judgment while adding separate analysis on ground (a) of the appeal. The dispute centered on a power of attorney authorizing Anthony Joe Teiko to act for the Plaintiff, which the Defendant attacked for non-compliance with section 1 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1998 (Act 549) and for a name misdescription (“Doe” versus “Joe”). The court held that the instrument, tendered without objection and appearing duly executed, should be construed liberally; the burden fell on the challenger, who failed to cross-examine on attestation. Applying falsa demonstratio and de minimis, the name error was trivial. The panel agreed with Aryene JA on ground (c) and reversed the Circuit Court’s judgment; ground (b) was abandoned, noting land jurisdiction under Act 459 s.41(a)(iii).
I have the benefit of reading the well-reasoned judgment of my respected sister, Aryene JA and I agreed with her. I have, however, decided to add some few words on my own on ground (a) of the appeal filed by the Defendant on 5th July, 2016. My respected sister in her lead judgment discussed the facts of the case in detail as well as ground (c) of the appeal and the additional grounds of appeal and I will refrain from discussing the facts and those grounds of appeal.
The three grounds of appeal filed by the Defendant against the judgment of the Circuit Court are as follows:
“a. The learned trial judge erred in law when she failed to disregard the evidence of the Plaintiff Attorney since the power of attorney so tendered was void for not confirming with the Power of Attorney Act, 1998 ( Act 548).
b. The learned trial judge erred when she failed to decline jurisdiction when the monetary value of the property far exceeds that of the trial Court.
c. The evidence is against the weight of the evidence.”
The Defendant expressly abandoned ground (b) of the appeal which sought to impugn the judgment of the Circuit Court on grounds of value jurisdiction. The counsel for the Plaintiff abandoned ground (b) of the appeal after satisfying himself that value jurisdiction before the Circuit Court excludes land by the fact that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in land matters is at large by virtue of section 41 (a) (iii) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459). The ground (b) of the appeal is therefore abandoned and no discussion would be made on it.
I proceed to discuss ground (a) of the appeal which seeks to invalidate the power of attorney granted by the Plaintiff to the donee to conduct the case on his behalf. The Defendant alleges that the power of attorney issued by the Donor to the donee was not executed in accordance in with the Powers of Attorney Act, 1998 (Act 549) and should be declared void. The Defendant attacked the competence of the power of attorney from two fronds; the first one is that it was not executed in accordance with the Powers of Attorney Act, 1998 ( Act 549) and the second one is that the name of the donee is different from the name used in the power of attorney.
The Defendant’s position was that the power of attorney was executed by the donor to the donee and witnessed without any indication as to whether the witness was present at the time it was signed by the donor. Section 1 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1998 (Act 549) regulates the exe