EMMANUEL K. AZAMETI VS DINGLE DORDZI ATTIPOE & ANOR

ASIEDU JSC: -INTRODUCTION: My lords, this appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, sitting at Ho in the Volta Region, which was delivered on the 18th day of December 2019. In this judgment, the Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent will be referred to as the Plaintiff whiles the Defendants/Respondents/Appellants will retain their original designation as Defendants in the matter.

The Court of Appeal, had, in its judgment, reversed the judgment of the High Court which had declared title in a disputed area of land in the Defendants and thus, effectively, making the Plaintiff the owner of the said parcel of land.

Aggrieved by the judgment of the Court of Appeal therefore, the Defendants filed the instant appeal on the 4th March 2020 and pray this Court, by way of relief, to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and restore the judgment of the High Court dated the 12th December 2016. GROUNDS OF APPEAL: The grounds for the Defendants’ appeal are: (a). That the Court of Appeal woefully failed to adequately consider the case of the Defendants/Respondents/Appellants thereby occasioning substantial miscarriage of justice.

b). That the judgment is against the weight of evidence.

c). That the Court of Appeal erred in granting judgment for the Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent in the light of the finding of the court that the Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent failed to indicate the size of the land.

d). That the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Defendants/Respondents/Appellants did not adduce any evidence of long unchallenged possession and occupation in respect to the specific area of dispute.

e). That the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 were consistent and corroborative of Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent’s case.

f). That the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the deficiency in Exhibits 1 and 2 by reason of the lack of any form of description could not be so cured by Defendants/Respondents/Appellants long, unchallenged, overt and transparent acts of ownership so as to defeat the interest of the Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent regarding the specific boundary between Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent and Defendants/Respondents/Appellants(g). That the Court of Appeal erred in holding that DW1 and DW2 did nothing to help the Defendants/Respondents/Appellants’ case regarding the Defendants/Respondents/Appellants’ ownership of the area claimed by the Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent.

h). That the Court of Appeal