2018
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff, representing her family, filed a lawsuit seeking title to a disputed piece of land but lost the case in the trial High Court due to lack of capacity to sue. The defendant's counterclaim for title was upheld. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the plaintiff's capacity but dismissed the defendant's counterclaim. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that the plaintiff did have the capacity to sue on behalf of her family and affirmed the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the counterclaim. The Supreme Court found that the lower courts failed to properly appreciate the evidence, and underscored that family members have the right to sue to protect family property under certain circumstances. Both factual and legal arguments are permissible when contesting that a judgment is against the weight of evidence. The Court reaffirmed the principle that appeals by rehearing involve a comprehensive review of all evidence and testimonies.
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