CELESTINE KUAGBENU v. CECILIA SPENCER
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- WOOD C J(PRESIDING)
- DOTSE JSC
- ANIN YEBOAH JSC
- GBADEBE JSC
- BENIN JSC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In an appeal case, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had found that the trial High Court erred in its decision favoring the defendant (appellant). The trial judge's reliance on impressions from an unrecorded site inspection was found to be extraneous and inadmissible. The appellant had illegally occupied more land than her site plan indicated, including a road reservation, which justified the Court of Appeal's reversal. The Supreme Court found the respondent (plaintiff) satisfied the burden of proof, affirming the appellate decision and awarding damages for trespass.
GBADEGBE JSC:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal by which the previous decision of the trial High Court in the action herein was reversed and judgment entered for the plaintiff (the respondent herein) against the defendant (the appellant herein). In these proceedings, the appellant seeks a reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeal, and as the said decision had earlier on reversed that of the trial court, the question for our decision is whether the judgment of the Court of Appeal is supported by the admitted evidence on the record. In particular, we are required to determine if the decision of the trial High Court has suffered from a wrong conclusion on the effect of the evidence and or was perverse or unreasonable. As our task is in the nature of a re-hearing, we are carefully to review the evidence contained in the record of appeal for the purpose of determining whether the appellant’s complaint to us based on the grounds of appeal contained in the notice of appeal by which these proceedings were initiated are well made out.
In their decision, the learned justices of the Court of Appeal faulted the learned trial judge for acting on impressions allegedly made by him at an inspection of the locus to determine the question as to which of the rival versions placed before him was more probable. An examination of the record of appeal before us reveals that beyond the said impressions which apparently tilted the learned trial judge’s opinion in favour of the appellant’s case, the effect of the evidence pointed to the conclusion reached by the learned justices of the Court of Appeal at pages 247 – 248 of the record of appeal that the space between the contesting parties is the road which unfortunately had been fenced by the appellant in an apparent exercise of her right of ownership to the property. The evidence also established that the appellant had occupied a larger area than that contained in her site plan. As the evidence on the record pointed to these clearly established facts, it is right to say that in the absence of any legitimate reason that might preclude the trier of fact from accepting them, the respondent herein had satisfied the evidential burden placed on her under the Evidence Act, (NRCD 323) and was entitled to judgement.
Although the learned trial judge appeared to have acted upon impressions gathered by him at the inspection of the locus to come to a different conclusion the record of appeal is silent on any s