DUMEGAH AHADJI DODO & ORS v. BRITISH TOBACCO COMPANY LTD. & ORS

APALOO JA; This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court Ho, dated 30th July 2010. The lower Court gave judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs/Respondents. We deem it appropriate to refer to the parties by the designation given to them in the course of the trial in the Court below.

The Defendants dissatisfied with the Judgment filed their notices of appeal in which they attacked the decision of the Court. The 2nd Defendant’s notice of appeal which was first in time filed on 10/08/10 had 3 grounds of appeal. These were;

1. “The judgment is against the weight of evidence.

2. The learned trial judge erred by presuming and/or holding that the plaintiffs had capacity to sue as the lawful representatives of Fievie State.

3. The learned trial Judge erred by failing or refusing to uphold the validity of the Government’s acquisition of land which was registered at the Deeds Registry as No. 1244/1954 and covered by certificate of title.”

On 30/08/10 a notice of appeal was again filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Defendants on the following 10 grounds.

“The Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself and thereby failed to advert his mind to the relevant evidence on record in the determination of the validity of the 1st and 2nd defendants’ title to the land in dispute which was based on the Government’s paramount title by the acquisition of the land in dispute in 1954 by virtue of the Public Lands Ordinance (CAP 113).

The Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself and thereby erred in law by holding that the Counterclaim of the 1st and 2nd Defendants is statute barred.

The Learned Trial Judge suo moto substituted a case contrary to and inconsistent with that which the Plaintiffs themselves put up.

The Learned Trial Judge erred in law and misdirected himself by holding that the 1956 case of ISAAC WOYOME – VRS – HEADMAN AHADJI AGBOMASU & ORS. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 1965 ousted or nullified the title which the Government in 1954 acquired in respect of the land in dispute by virtue of the Public Lands Ordinance (CAP 113).

Having regard to the fact that the land, the subject matter of the suit was vested in the Government by virtue of the Public Lands Ordinance (CAP 113), the Learned Trial Judge erred in law and failed to recognize that the lease granted by the Plaintiffs to the 1st Defendant in 1958 and evidenced by Exhibit “A” was null and void ab initio in that by the Governments acquisition of the said land on 10th day of August, 1954, the Plaintiffs could not