Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
September 14, 1959
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
(His lordship stated the facts, and continued : It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that as the land had been conveyed to the defendant under a solemn deed of conveyance, it was not open to her either to plead (or to lead evidence to prove) a prior sale of - the same land to her by an oral agreement. It was further submitted that the effect of that extrinsic evidence of events which happened prior to the execution of the deed is to vary the contents of the solemn deed.
I cannot see the force of this submission. No objection was raised to the admission of the evidence in question; in fact, one of the pieces of evidence in that behalf was tendered on behalf of the plaintiff. I refer to Exhibit "E", which is a receipt Afful gave to the defendant some time before the date of the execution of the defendant's document, and it is for part-payment made by the defendant of the price of the land.
I understand the law to be that extrinsic evidence of transactions which have culminated in a deed are not admissible to prove that the contents of the deed do not represent the true agreement between the parties. But the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the defendant in proof of the averments in her statement of defence do not seek to vary the contents of her deed. Her main point is that she has been in active possession of the land in dispute as owner thereof long before the date of her deed; and that even though the deed does not recite the fact that it was executed to evidence a fact already in existence, that omission to recite the original sale does not affect the transfer already completed, or make the deed more than a mere written evidence of a transfer of land already effected as between natives.
Following upon his submission that the evidence of the oral sale to the defendant should be rejected, and the defendant strictly held to her deed of conveyance of the 14th April, 1955, learned counsel for the plaintiff with great seriousness invited the Court to hold that the case rests entirely upon priority as between the plaintiff's deed of conveyance dated the 26th February, 1953, and that of the defendant dated the 14th April, 1955. Counsel accordingly submitted that because the date of his client's deed is earlier in time than that of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief he seeks. Had both documents been registered or both unregistered, there would have been substance in this submission that and the Court had to consider was pri
AI Generated Summary
In this land title dispute, OLLENNU J. assessed competing claims involving vendor Afful, the plaintiff, and a defendant whose initials "K.A.O." marked boundary pillars. The plaintiff relied on an earlier, unregistered deed dated 26 February 1953 and argued that the defendant could not rely on extrinsic evidence of a prior oral sale. The court rejected that argument because the evidence did not seek to vary the deed, and instead applied the Land Registry Ordinance’s registration-priority regime. The defendant’s deed, executed on 14 April 1955 and registered on 8 August 1955, took priority over the plaintiff’s unregistered deed. Critically, Afful had sold the land to the defendant in 1948, and the defendant had possessed it since then, while the plaintiff lacked effective possession and acted without verifying Afful’s title. The claim was dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant with costs.