EDWIN KOFI FIANKE & ORS v. CEPHAS SEGBORWOTSO KOKU & ANOR

POKU- ACHEAMPONG, JA:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court Denu dated 19th October 2018.

For the purposes of this judgment the parties shall retain their designations used at the High Court.

The Plaintiff issued a writ against the Defendants claiming the following reliefs:

a. Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Tsiame and bounded on one side by the property of the Dallah Family of Tsiame on the other side by the Tsiame- Doveme road, on the next side by the property of the Dallah family of Tsiame and on the last side by property of the Dallah family of Tsiame.

b. Recovery of possession.

c. Damages for trespass.

d. Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his assigns, servants, agents, privies, successors in title, personal representatives or anyone claiming under the Defendant from laying claim to the said land.

e. Costs.

The Trial Judge decided in favour of the Defendants and dismissed all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs and made the following consequential orders.

(a) That the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent is not the validly elected head of the Dallah family of Tsiame.

(b)That the grant of a parcel of land made by the 2nd Defendant/Respondent to the 1st Defendant/Respondent was a valid grant.

(c) Cost of ¢3,000.00 in favour of the 1st Defendant/Respondent.

Aggrieved by the decision the Plaintiffs appealed per a Notice of Appeal dated 12/12/18 on the following grounds of Appeal.

i. The judgment is against the weight of evidence.

ii. The finding of fact by the Learned Trial Judge that the 1st Plaintiff/Appellant is not the Head of the Dallah Family of Tsiame is not supported by the evidence on record.

iii. The holding of the Trial Judge that the 1st Defendant/Respondent is a bona fide purchaser of the subject matter of litigation for value without notice is not supported by the evidence on record.

iv. The Learned Trial Judge erred when he held that the 1st Defendant/Respondent acquired good title to the land the subject matter of litigation.

On 24/12/18 the Defendants/Respondents also filed a Notice of Intention to contend that Decision of Court below be Varied under rule 15(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997, C.I. 19 with the following grounds.

i. That the Learned High Court Judge erred in Law and in fact in holding that the Plaintiffs/Appellants had capacity to prosecute the suit.

ii. That the Learned High Court Judge erred in fact when he held that the Plai