February 24, 2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal (per Asiedu JA, with Domakyaareh JA and Poku-Acheampong JA concurring) dismissed Chadoma Limited’s appeal from the High Court, Sunyani. Chadoma claimed Plot No. 32, Block F, Sector 7, South Industrial Estate, Sunyani as state land validly leased to it by the Lands Commission, seeking declaratory, possessory, damages, and injunctive reliefs. The defendants, including the 1st Defendant identified in earlier litigation as Mrs. Jacinta Soraya Namih, contended the land was part of a stool lease held by their family and not public land. Applying Article 258(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution and section 5(a) of Act 767, the court held the Lands Commission manages only public or vested lands. The record showed no Executive Instrument or legislation vesting the land in the state; rather, it traced to a Sunyani Stool lease. The court rejected estoppel arguments, found the Commission’s purported lapse of the stool lease ultra vires, and condemned the Commission’s 27 January 2010 lease to Chadoma effected despite a 15 December 2009 injunction as contemptuous and fraudulent. The High Court’s dismissal was affirmed.
ASIEDU, JA.
This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court, Sunyani delivered on the 17th day of July 2014. Chadoma Limited, the Plaintiff/Appellant herein, on the 16th day of May 2011, issued a writ at the High Court, Sunyani claiming, jointly and severally, against the within named Defendants/Respondents, for:
a. A declaration that all that piece of land known as Plot No. 32, Block F, Sector 7, South Industrial Estate, Sunyani is the property of the Plaintiff.
b. General Damages for trespass.
c. Recovery of possession of all that piece and parcel of land described in relief (a) supra.
d. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, labourers, heirs, assigns, workmen, workers etc. [and] any person claiming through them [from] in any way or manner dealing or interfering with the land in dispute.
At the end of the trial, the High Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims and entered judgment for the Defendants. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the Plaintiff/Appellant filed the instant appeal on the 21st day of July 2014 praying that this Court “sets aside or vary the entire judgment by the High Court, Sunyani and enter judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Appellant” on the ground that “the judgment was against the weight of the evidence”.
The Plaintiff/Appellant indicated on the Notice of Appeal that additional grounds of appeal shall be filed upon the receipt of the [record of] proceedings. It is however worthy of note that no additional grounds were filed. Hence, the appeal was heard on the sole ground indicated in the Notice of Appeal.
It has been held in several cases that whenever an appeal is based on the ground that the judgment is against the weight of evidence, it implies that the Appellant is contending that there are certain pieces of evidence on the record which warrants a judgment in his favour but which were ignored by the trial judge and that if those pieces of evidence had been correctly applied, the trial judge would have come to no other conclusion than to enter judgment in favour of the Appellant. Thus, in Djin vs. Musah Baako [2007-2008] SCGLR 686, the Supreme Court held that:
“Where an Appellant complains that a judgment is against the weight of evidence, he is implying that there were certain pieces of evidence on the record which, if applied in his favour, could have changed the decision in his favour, or certain pieces of evidence have been wrongly applied against him. The