CHOU SEN LIN v. TONADO ENTERPRISES LTD , T. A. ASIAMAH

J U D G M E N T

BROBBEY, J.S.C.: This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal which had allowed an earlier appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court at Tema. The whole case concerned a piece of land situated at Tema.

The facts which gave rise to the litigation were as follows: The land in dispute belonged to the Tema Development Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the TDC. The evidence on record showed that it was leased to W. C. Tandoh of West Coast Dying Industries Ltd. He rented it to the respondent who shall hereafter be referred to as the plaintiff. He later sold his interest in the land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then proceeded to register it at the Lands Commission. The interest of Tandoh dated from 1st August 1974. Therefore, his interest which he sold to the plaintiff was dated from the same 1st August 1974.

The land sold to the plaintiff consisted of three plots which were numbered as LI 1, 2 and 3. The plaintiff put up factories on two plots, leaving the third plot for future development. The plaintiff later observed that there were encroachments on his land which he traced to the appellants, who shall hereafter be referred to as the defendants. In fact the defendants were constructing a fence wall on the third plot. When he did not succeed in getting them to stop the encroachments, he instituted action in the Tema Circuit Court claiming declaration of title to the land and perpetual injunction against the defendants or their agents.

The Circuit Court dismissed the plaintiff’s action, entered judgment for the defendants and added some other reliefs that were not part of those which the defendants applied for. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the Circuit Court. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. It was against the latter decision that the defendants have appealed to this court on the following three grounds:

“(a) The learned judges of the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the respondent’s purported acquisition of the land in dispute was tainted with fraud.

(b) The learned judges of the Court of Appeal erred in relying on the evidence of Thomas Aryitey (DW2) which was conflicting in all material particular.

© The learned judgment is against the weight of evidence.”

Counsel for the defendants commenced their case by arguing what he called “additional grounds” which he couched in the following terms:

“The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred by relying