BADU v. ADAMPA

JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.A.

Apaloo J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. The facts of this case were agreed and the only question which the court below was invited to decide was one of law. It is one of the legal points commonly debated in the courts of this country—namely, estoppel per rem judicatam. The learned judge decided that the appellant was so estopped. The latter takes issue with this decision and invites us to hold the contrary. We acceded to this invitation and held that the plea of estoppel was wrongly invoked upon the conclusion of argument on 9 June 1976.

Now the facts. There once lived at Mim in Brong-Ahafo, a man called Kwabena Agyapong. He died nearly half a century ago. In his lifetime, he erected a compound house at Mim. It was numbered D.S. 75. Upon Agyapong’s death, the house was succeeded to by one Kodjo Kusi. At some point of time, the family removed him from this position and the appellant entered into the inheritance of this property.

About 1955, the appellant took ill and left for Nigeria for treatment. He left the house in charge of his farm labourer called Mosi Panin. The latter had lived with the appellant for 25 years and was a person in whom he reposed confidence. Events proved that that confidence was misplaced. In 1964, the appellant returned to Mim and found the respondent installed in the house. His caretaker Mosi was nowhere to be found. Apparently, he returned to his home in Walatonga in the Upper Volta. But before this, he sold the house to the respondent by a deed dated 17 February 1961.

The respondent put tenants in the house and exercised the rights of a legal owner of the property. Upon the appellant's return, he asserted his title to the house and sought to eject the tenants. The respondent claimed ownership of the property and relied on the sale. The scene was thus clearly set for litigation. This followed shortly afterwards. On 13 January 1965 the appellant issued against the respondent in the High Court, Sunyani, a writ in which he claimed: "(a) Declaration of title to and/or recovery of possession of all that compound house No. D.S. 75 situate lying and being at Mim; and (b) £G200 general damages for trespass."

After a trial lasting a number of days, the learned trial judge, Baidoo J. found for the appellant. This was on 27 November 1967. The judge granted [p.452] the reliefs sought by the appellant in the following words:

"I therefore give judgment for the plaintiff for the reliefs claimed viz:

(a)