ANYETEY CHANTEY v. TEI KWABLAH KWEINOR

APPAU, JSC:-

The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, affirmed the judgment of the trial High Court in favour of the plaintiff/respondent/respondent against the defendant/appellant/appellant in this land matter. In the said judgment, the trial High Court dismissed appellant’s counter-claim, which was also affirmed by the Court of Appeal. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgment of the Court of Appeal, the defendant/appellant/appellant has brought this appeal before us, praying for the reversal of same on the following grounds:

The Court of Appeal erred in coming to a conclusion that the identity, extent and size of the land, the subject-matter, was not in issue as same was one of agreed fact.

The Court erred by holding that Exhibit ‘B’, which is the judgment in the case of AMEODA v PORDIER and AMEODA v FORZI & Ors [1967] GLR 479; C.A., is binding on the defendant and operated as Estoppel per rem judicatam.

The Judgment was against the weight of evidence.

For the purposes of this appeal the parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as respondent and appellant respectively.

In his written submissions filed on 15th May 2019, the appellant decided to argue all three grounds of appeal together under the last and omnibus ground; i.e. “The judgment was against the weight of evidence.” He claimed the disputed land as belonging to his family and that the respondent’s family is their licensee as they permitted them to settle on the land. He faulted the two lower courts for deciding in favour of the respondent by dismissing his counterclaim in the wake of the overwhelming evidence on record, which suggested that his Tei Kwabla Forzi family is the owner of the disputed land. He again challenged the trial court’s preliminary finding that he was not the head of his family and for that matter could not pursue a counterclaim against the respondent. He referred the Court to previous cases which he had pursued for and on behalf of his said family as family head without any challenge from anybody. He contended that the judgment in the consolidated cases of Ameoda v Pordier and Ameoda v Forzi and Ors. (supra), which the two lower courts based their decisions on in dismissing his counterclaim, was not applicable to him, since his immediate Forzie family of Terkpenya, was neither a party nor privy to that litigation. That judgment, he reiterated, could not therefore operate as estoppel per rem judicata against his family as contended by the two lower courts. He prayed