April 25, 2018
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On appeal from the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Ghana, per Appau, JSC, undertook a comprehensive rehearing on the omnibus ground that the judgment was against the weight of evidence. The case centers on land at Asunafo purchased by Dr. E.S. Asiedu Offei in 1935, with his daughter suing for herself and the Asiedu Offei family of Larteh for declaration of title, injunction, and damages. Lower courts denied her capacity, misconstruing “syndicate” as co-owners rather than tenant farmer groups who worked the land under abunu arrangements and accounted to Dr. Offei and then to the plaintiff. The co-defendant, Kwaku Gyapong (aka Okai Boateng), claimed a gift from the Okyeman Council and leased to the defendant, Yaw Asamoah, but the Council owned no land at Asunafo and could not convey title under nemo dat. Applying Rules 6(7)(b) and 23(3) of C.I. 16 and customary law (Kwan v Nyieni; In re Ashaley Botwe), the Court held the plaintiff had capacity; affirmed dismissal of the counterclaim; entered judgment for title and injunction; but declined quantified damages due to insufficient proof.
APPAU, JSC :-
The appellants herein who were the defendant and co-defendant in the trial High Court, would be referred to simply as defendants in this judgment, while the respondent who was the plaintiff would maintain the title; plaintiff.
The authorities are legion that an appeal is by way of rehearing, particularly where the appellant alleges in his notice of appeal that the decision of the trial court was against the weight of evidence. In such a case, it is the duty of the appellate court to analyse the entire record of appeal, take into account the testimonies and all documentary evidence adduced at the trial before arriving at its decision, so as to satisfy itself that, on a preponderance of the probabilities, the conclusions of the trial judge are reasonably or amply supported by the evidence on record. And it is immaterial whether the appeal is a second one from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. See the cases of: 1. AKUFO-ADDO v CATHELINE [1992] 1 GLR 377; 2. TUAKWA v BOSOM [2001-2002] SCGLR 61; 3. ARYEH & AKAKPO v AYAA IDDRISU [2010] SCGLR 891 @ 899; 4. ACKAH v PERGAH TRANSPORT LTD & Others [2010] SCGLR 728 and 5. KOGLEX LTD (No. 2) v FIELD [2000] SCGLR 175.
In holding (3) of the Akufo-Addo v Catheline case (supra), this Court held: - “Where an appellant exercised the right vested in him by rule 8 (4) of L.I. 218, which is now rule 6 (5) of C.I. 16 and appealed against a judgment on the general ground that; ‘the judgment was against the weight of evidence’, the appellate court had jurisdiction to examine the totality of the evidence before it and come to its own decision on the admitted and undisputed facts”.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for herself and on behalf of her family for title to a piece of land and lost in the trial High Court on the ground of want of capacity. The defendant who counterclaimed for title to the same subject matter succeeded in his counterclaim. Plaintiff appealed against the decision of the trial High Court on several grounds including the finding of want of capacity on her part and the oft-quoted omnibus or general ground that the judgment was against the weight of evidence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision that plaintiff lacked capacity to institute the action but dismissed that part of the judgment that upheld defendant’s counter-claim. The defendants appealed to this Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing their counterclaim. They contested as man