DR. DOUGLAS ZORMELO v. ERNEST DANKWAH
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- CECILIA SOWAH, JA (PRESIDING)
- ANTHONY OPPONG, JA
- ANGELINA MENSAH HOMIAH
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Anthony Oppong, JA, writing for the Court of Appeal, allowed the appeal by the defendant from a High Court judgment in a land dispute arising in Peduase, Akuapem. The plaintiff claimed a 1.52-acre purchase from Odikro Kofi Tawiah registered as No. 2711/2001, while the defendant claimed a 1.02-acre acquisition from the Abena Aforowah family of Kitase registered as L2840/1993. After directing a composite plan, the trial court’s own superimposition (Exhibit CE1) showed the parties were not on a common site: the plaintiff’s claimed parcel lay elsewhere, but the defendant’s parcel matched his site plan and the physical site. The appellate court emphasized Rule 8 of C.I. 19 and the weight-of-evidence standard, faulted the plaintiff’s failure to describe his land and his absence during the survey, noted the walled area approximated 1.02 acres, and held no priority issue arose. Reinforcing the good-faith purchaser rule, the court set aside the High Court’s declaration and entered judgment for the defendant; damages and costs issues were moot.
ANTHONY OPPONG, JA
This is an appeal from the judgment in respect of land dispute delivered by the High Court, Koforidua dated 18th February, 2014.
The plaintiff/respondent to be simply called plaintiff claimed to have purchased a piece of land size of 1.52 acres situate at Peduase, Akuapem from Odikro Kofi Tawiah, head of Oyoko family of Gyankama, somewhere in 2001. The said land was duly registered as 2711/2001.
Defendant/appellant to be also called simply as defendant claimed to have acquired a piece of land size of 1.02 acres situate and lying at Peduase, Akuapem-South from Abena Aforowah family of Kitase in 1993. The said land was also duly registered as L2840/1993.
After the parties and their witnesses have adduced oral and documentary evidence, not forgetting the evidence of the court expert, the surveyor, the trial high court delivered its judgment in favour of plaintiff and dismissed the counterclaim of defendant.
Dissatisfied with this judgment, the defendant appealed against it on the following amended grounds:
1. The judgment cannot be supported by the evidence admitted at the trial and available on the Record of Appeal
2. The cost and damages awarded against the Appellant are harsh and cannot be supported by the evidence on the Record of Appeal
It must be remarked that the Court of Appeal Rules, C.I. 19 governing civil appeals, rule 8 thereof allows an appeal which is based on the general ground that the judgment is against the weight of evidence. To say that a judgment is against the weight of evidence in a civil appeal appears more consistent with the permissible rule than to say the judgment cannot be supported by the evidence. The latter appears more appropriate to be used as a ground in criminal appeals than in civil appeals. The point I wish to put across to learned lawyer for defendant is that in civil appeals, the permissible general ground of appeal is “the judgment is against the weight of evidence” and not “the judgment cannot be supported by evidence on record”, even though the two might appear to mean the same thing or might seem to have the same effect.
The authorities that have their statutory foundation in Rule 8 of C.I. 19 have it that an appeal connotes rehearing of a case, especially where the ground of appeal is the general ground that the judgment is against the weight of evidence. See the cases of:
1. Tuakwa v. Bosom (2001-2002) SCGLR 61
2. Oppong v. Anarfo (2011) 2 SCGLR 556
3. Abbey & Others v. Antwi V