AQUAH v. COFIE

JUDGMENT OF ADUMUA-BOSSMAN, J.

By his writ of summons the plaintiff claims a declaration of title, recovery of possession, damages for trespass and an order of injunction against the defendant in respect of a building plot situate at West Korle Gonno described in detail in the said writ. By his statement of claim he disclosed that he claims under and by virtue of an indenture of conveyance dated the 1st December, 1948, made between Nii Tetteh Kpeshie, Sempe Manche as vendor and himself, the plaintiff as purchaser; and that he entered into possession immediately after the sale and fixed concrete cement pillars “to mark the area of his occupation” and was occupying virtually undisturbed until some time in November, 1958, when the defendant unlawfully entered upon the land and commenced building operations thereon.

[p.477]

The defence disclosed in the statement of defence was that the plot was granted and conveyed to the defendant by an indenture of conveyance dated the 2nd January, 1956, made between Nii Kofi Akrashie II, James Town Manche, as donor and the defendant as donee, and the defendant relies on the grant contained in that indenture to justify his entry upon the plot in dispute.

The plaintiff has filed a copy of topo sheet No. 219 (admitted as exhibit Z) with the plot in dispute shown edged red or pink thereon. The parties are agreed that the plot on the sheet is the one in dispute.

The straightforward issue which emerges from the pleadings is whether the plot in dispute formed part of Sempe stool land so that good and valid title was granted and conveyed to the plaintiff under his indenture of conveyance (admitted as exhibit A), or whether on the contrary it formed part of James Town (Alata) stool land so that it was rather the defendant who acquired good and valid title thereto by virtue of his indenture of conveyance (admitted as exhibit 1).

It is unnecessary to point out, as indeed was conceded by his counsel, that the plaintiff suing in declaration of title, assumed the onus of establishing the title which he claims by the strength of his case not by any weakness in the case of the defendant. To borrow the classic words of Webber C.J. (Sierra Leone) in Kodilinye v. Odu:

“The onus lies on the plaintiff to satisfy the Court that he is entitled on the evidence brought by him to a declaration of title. The plaintiff in this case must rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case. If this onus is not d