BOGOLO v. ALIEBO
March 15, 1983
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANSAH-TWUM J
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
- Equity and Trusts
- Tort Law
March 15, 1983
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Ansah-Twum J. dismissed an appeal from the District Court Grade II at Half-Assini concerning farmland at Avosuazo. The plaintiff alleged trespass—including felling of palm trees and destruction of coffee—yet the judge held that because the defendant was in possession and disputed ownership, the suit put title in issue and must meet the standards for a declaration. Relying on precedents like Kponuglo v. Kodadja, Bedu v. Agbi, and Serwah v. Kesse, the court found the plaintiff failed to prove the identity and boundaries of the land, notably by not calling adjoining landowners or his nephew Amenlemah. The court rejected claims of procedural irregularity at the locus in quo, and affirmed that long possession and acquiescence/estoppel barred relief. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT OF ANSAH-TWUM J.
This is an appeal against the judgment of the District Court Grade II, holden at Half-Assini on 23 April 1981, in which the action was dismissed and judgment was entered for the defendant in the suit in which the plaintiff claimed as follows:
"1. The plaintiff herein claims against the defendant to declare his title on that piece or parcel of the plaintiff's farmland situate, lying and being at a place known and called `Avosuazo' sharing boundaries on the north by the late Annor Kundoh', ,
4. The plaintiff here seeks an interim injunction order against the defendant herein, his assignees, and servants from entering into the said farmland in dispute till final hearing and determination.
5. In default plaintiff claims ¢1,000."
The facts of the case, as found by the trial magistrate, are sufficiently set out in the judgment from which this appeal has been brought, and it may, therefore, not be necessary to set the same out here again in extenso. I may, however, refer to the relevant portions as and when I consider it necessary.
[p.1174]
The original grounds of appeal filed by the solicitor for the appellant (hereafter called the plaintiff) dated 19 May 1981, read as follows:
"3.(a) That on the evidence the plaintiff should have been given judgment;
(b) that the court below misconceived the issues at stake and erroneously dismissed the claim of the plaintiff;
(c) that the court received inadmissible evidence and acted thereon; and
(d) that the judgment was perverse."
Additional grounds were filed on 12 May 1982 and they read as follows:
"1. Grave irregularity affecting the merits of the case were committed by the trial magistrate as specified hereunder:
(a) after the visit to the locus in quo, the court did not re-assemble the witnesses who participated in the locus in quo, did not say on oath what part they took in the recent locus in quo;
(b) the trial magistrate made use of evidence not appearing in a witness evidence in court or in the inspection report;
(d) by not giving their evidence of the part they played in the locus in quo on oath, the appellant was denied the opportunity of testing the veracity of their evidence in cross-examination."
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff and his witnesses having offered sufficient evidence in proof of his claim, the evidence being admissible evidence, required no corroboration and it would therefore be wrong for the trial court to reject