azimi shaarani v. rev. william amankwaa (substituted by rev. mrs. rose amankwaa)

HENRY KWOFIE JA: This present appeal has been launched by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment of the High Court Accra (Land Division) delivered on 22nd of November, 2019.

The trial court in that judgment dismissed the plaintiffs claim and entered judgment for the defendant on his counterclaim.

Dissatisfied with the said judgment, the plaintiff/appellant launched the instant appeal on 5th December 2019 on the following grounds: i) The whole judgment is against the weight of evidence before the Court.

ii) The learned trial judge erred in law when he equated the unproved irregularities around the issue of the plaintiff/appellants Land Certificate with fraud  iii) The learned trial judge failed woefully to appreciate the nature, time and consequence of plaintiff/appellants possession and occupation of the land in dispute and led him to wrong conclusion that led to a miscarriage of justice iv) The learned trial judge erred in law when he failed to appreciate the legal effect of the sale of the land by the original defendant to a third party one Mr.

Agyekum and its legal bearing on defendants interest if at all.

v) The learned trial judge erred in law and fact when he concluded that plaintiff/appellant paid an amount of $21,000 for acquisition of his land certificate and thereby wrongfully concluded that it was obtained by fraud.

vi) The learned trial judge failed to appreciate the consistency in the plaintiff/appellants oral evidence with the documentary evidence before the court.

vii) The trial courts judgment was heavily weighed by and with speculative conclusions that resulted in erroneous conclusions in law and fact viii) The learned trial judge erred grievously in concluding that the age of the plaintiff/appellant determined his ability to purchase the land in dispute in 2005 and thereby leading to a wrong conclusion.

ix) The learned trial judge erred grievously when he concluded his judgment on fraud based on circumstantial evidence.

x) The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the defendant/respondent had succeeded in proving the fraud to the legal standard when in fact, defendant did not lead or demonstrate or prove any fraud against plaintiff xi) The learned trial judge erred grievously in law when he embarked on a siege or legal exercise to find fraud when none was established by defendant or proved or existed at the trial xii) The learned trial judge also erred in law when he held that the defendant/respondent had prov