GH - DANQUAH v. WUTA-OFEI AND BONNE.

VERITY Ag.J.A. In this case the plaintiff sought by her writ a declaration of title to the ownership of certain land, damages for pg187 trespass and an interim injunction. The suit was instituted in the appropriate Native Court but was transferred to the Land Division of the Supreme Court where pleadings were ordered. By her statement of claim the plaintiff sought a declaration of title as against both defendants and as against the first defendant only recovery of possession, mesne profits and a perpetual injunction.

The issues between the parties arise from averments of the plaintiff that she was in 1939 given an oral grant of the land in dispute by the Osu Stool, which gift was confirmed in 1945 by a deed dated December 31, 1945, reciting the earlier oral grant. The plaintiff testified that she went into possession and caused pillars to be placed at the four corners of the plot and further avers that the first defendant in 1948 cornmenced preparations to build upon the plot, erected a fence thereon and finally completed the building of a house in spite of repeated protests.

The defendant on the other hand avers that he was given an oral grant of the same plot of land by the Osu Stool acting by the Head of the Alata Quarter of Osu five years before the alleged grant to the plaintiff, and that he entered into possession some ten years before he commenced to build thereon. He further avers that in 1947 the oral grant was confirmed by a deed which appears to have been dated October 1, 1946, the date having been subsequently altered to February 1, 19'17, for some reason which is not quite clear. It is to be observed that this document contains no recital of the alleged earlier oral grant.

In relation to this aspect of the case the learned trial judge, after full consideration of the evidence, accepted that of the plaintiff as to t,he oral grant to her in 1939, which was not in fact seriously disputed at the trial, and rejected that of the defendants as to an oral grant to the first defendant in 1935. With this finding I am not disposed to disagree. It is a clear finding of fact based largely upon the credibility of witnesses whom he saw and heard, and I see no reason to differ from the conclusion reached by the learned judge. It was urged on behalf of the defendants that there is insufficient proof of the alleged grant to the plaintiff by native law and custom, but in my view the oral testimony coupled with the recital in the deed of confirmation are in

DANQUAH v. WUTA-OFEI AND BONNE.

Areas of Law