EDUFUL AND ANOTHER v. PANTSIL
1966
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- OLLENNU
- APALOO
- LASSEY JJ.S.C
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
1966
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involved a land dispute over the ownership of property in Gomoa Hwida. The appellants claimed ancestral ownership and accused the respondent of trespass. The respondent asserted long-term occupation by his ancestors and necessity for removal of stones. The local court ruled for the appellants without properly evaluating evidence. The High Court reversed this decision, noting the magistrate's inadequate consideration of evidence and reliance on extraneous matters. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, emphasizing the need for proper evaluation of evidence and confirming the defendant's right to remain in possession until a superior title is established. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.S.C.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court which set aside a decision of the Gomoa Assin Local Court in a land matter. The appellants claimed that a piece of land which was said to be situate at a place called Gomoa Hwida and commonly referred to as Osibum belonged to their ancestors. They complained that the respondent trespassed onto that land and removed therefrom ancestral stones called "Apimii." Accordingly, they sought against him in the local court, damages for trespass and a perpetual injunction. The appellants gave the boundaries of the land.
The respondent denied that the land belonged to the appellants' ancestors and for his part, claimed that it was land part of which his ancestors settled upon for about 200 years. He said he, and his forbears before him, had lived on the land undisturbed for many years. With regard to the ancestral stones which sparked off the present litigation, the respondent claimed them as his own. He admitted removing them but said their removal became necessary as their ancient repository was affected by a proposed road and it became necessary to remove them to a place of safety.
Accordingly, notwithstanding the form of the plaint, the issue which the local court was called upon to determine was: Which of the two families own the land in dispute and hence the ancestral stones in question? Both sides gave evidence in support of their claims and called witnesses. The appellants were in no position to dispute the long undisturbed possession of the respondent on the disputed land. They sought to explain it away by evidence that their ancestors permitted the respondent's ancestors to occupy a portion of their [p.29] land. The appellants claimed that even a year before the action, the respondent sought and obtained the permission of their caretaker before farming on a portion of the land. All these averments were denied by the respondent.
On the conclusion of evidence, the local court magistrate conducted an inspection of the locus and thereafter made written notes of his observations. Most of this is unhelpful and nothing emerged from the inspection decisive of this case. Shortly after the inspection, the magistrate delivered his judgment. A substantial portion of it is a reproduction of the appellants' evidence. The local court magistrate made no attempt to assess the value of the oral evidence and clearly did not express acceptance of the appellants' claim that the respondent's fam