ELIZABETH ABBAN ASHONG VS NARTEY KOBLAH
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff sought to retrieve a family land document from the defendant. The District Court ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed, arguing errors in the lower court's judgment and inconsistencies in evidence handling. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the plaintiff.
Plaintiff/Appellant, hereinafter known as the plaintiff, commenced the instant action against the defendant/Respondent, hereinafter known as the defendant, at the District Court, Amasaman, praying that the court order the defendant to return to her the Kofi Tsuru Family Indenture on its land, which she gave to him, for which he has refused to return to her in spite of repeated demands.
The District Court went through a full trial of the case and delivered its judgment on 30th August 2013 in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the said judgment, has appealed to this court for variation of the said judgment.
Brief facts of the case are that both the plaintiff and the defendant are second cousins and both belong to the Tetteh Kofi Family of Obeyeyie. The plaintiff avers that the family had a vast land at Obeyeyie, which has been documented by Statutory Declaration deposited at the Lands Commission. The plaintiff was informed of this vast land by Numo Tei Aryee, who was the customary successor of the plaintiff’s father, who died in 1974. Before the death of Numo Tei Aryee in 2009, he informed the plaintiff of the said document deposited at the Lands Commission.
The plaintiff contends that being a woman, she collected the documents from the Lands Commission in the company of the defendant. She states that the defendant hurriedly lured her to make a photocopy of the said documents and hand over the original to the plaintiff, but to no avail. The plaintiff has on several occasions demanded the original copy of the document from the defendant, but it has been fruitless. The court should, therefore, compel the defendant to release the documents to the plaintiff.
The defendant, however, stated that the land belongs to the Kofi Tsuru family and not the Tetteh Kofi family. He denies that the plaintiff collected the document from the Lands Commission. He also denies that he collected the document from the plaintiff to make a photocopy. The District Court, after going through a full trial of the case, delivered its judgment on 30th August 2013 in favor of the defendant.
The plaintiff, dissatisfied with the judgment of the District Court, filed an appeal against the said judgment on 10th September 2013 on the following grounds:
1. The judgment is strange, absurd, and manifestly against the weight of evidence adduced.
2. The learned trial judge occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice by rejecting the corroborative evidence of PW2, PW1