ERIC OMAN MENSAH, BENJAMIN OBOUR MENSAH v. MR. PAT YAWSON
June 9, 2010
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- BROBBEY, JSC (PRESIDING)
- ANSAH, JSC
- DOTSE, JSC
- YEBOAH, JSC
- AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS), JSC
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
June 9, 2010
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Yeboah, JSC, allowed an appeal arising from a land boundary dispute at Tudu, South East of Adabraka, Accra. The respondents, plaintiffs below, sought a declaration of title and ancillary reliefs, tracing their title to their grandfather circa 1911, and obtained a Land Title Certificate. The appellants traced title through Mr. Yawson, obtained letters of administration and a vesting asset, and the first defendant sold to the second defendant, who said the property was acquired in his firm’s name for a warehouse. The High Court had ordered the Chief Surveyor to prepare a composite plan and determine boundaries, but the trial record showed that the survey was not properly undertaken and the trial judge failed to record notes from a visit to the locus in quo. The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants’ appeal without cogent reasons, despite recognizing the boundary issue. Emphasizing that Land Title Certificates are prima facie evidence of title and not conclusive of boundaries, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered a fresh hearing to properly ascertain the exact boundary.
J U D G M E N T
YEBOAH, JSC:-
The respondents in this appeal commenced an action against the appellants as defendant at the High Court, Accra. By the amended writ of summons the plaintiff claimed against the defendants jointly and severally, a declaration of title to the land described in the schedule and other ancillary reliefs. The land the subject matter of the action is at Tudu, South East of Adabraka, Accra.
The claim of the plaintiffs is based on the simple ground, that the land was acquired by their grandfather in or about 1911. The said grandfather whose name was not pleaded enjoyed the use of the land and upon his death the land became the property of the father of the plaintiffs’. It was after the death of the plaintiff’s father that the property passed to the plaintiffs’ as successors. It was part of the pleadings and evidence that the statutory declaration covering the land was used to procure a
Land Title Certificate covering the land. The cause of action against the defendants is that the defendants had broken the wall on part of the land which serves as the boundary between the defendants’ predecessors-in-title’s land and that of the plaintiffs.
The defendant controverted most of the allegations of facts pleaded but it appears that when the evidence was led it became clear that the defendants acquired their land from one Mr. Yawson who inherited the land from his father. After the death of the first defendant’s father, the property passed on to the first defendant. A vesting asset was prepared after the administrators had applied for and obtained letters of administration for the property to be vested in the first defendant who sold the property to the second defendant. In the course of his evidence, the second defendant claimed that the property was acquired in the name of his firm for a warehouse. The defendants’ also counterclaimed for title and damages for trespass and prayed for a further order for cancellation of the Land Title Certificate granted to the plaintiffs, on grounds of fraud.
From the record of proceedings, several interlocutory proceedings were taken before the trial court which do not appear to be necessary for the determination of this appeal.
As stated above, both parties did not dispute that their predecessors-in-title owned their respective lands. Even though several issues were joined to establish the title of both parties, at the application for directions stage, the core issue which the trial court was confro