FELICIA ADAMS & ANOTHER v. FUSEINI ALHASSAN BAAKO
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OFOE, J.A
- BARTELS-KODWO,J.A
- BERNASKO ESSAH, J.A
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the Ghana Court of Appeal, Justice Victor Ofoe authored a unanimous judgment focusing on the identity of land at the Kambero Residential Area, Tamale. The plaintiff claimed plot No. 52, tracing title through Seidu Mahama and the Kpambegu Chief, with a lease from the Lands Commission, and sought declarations and injunctions after finding a building on the supposed plot. The defendant asserted she occupied plot No. 405, obtained through Fuo Gbanglana. Technical evidence was pivotal: surveyor Alhassan Gibrim prepared a composite plan confirming plot No. 52 is distinct and vacant while plot No. 405 exists with the defendant’s building; Town and Country Planning officer Adam Awal corroborated that 405 is not on the scheme but exists on the ground. The trial court’s conclusion equating the plots and faulting defendant’s grant was unsupported. The Court of Appeal set aside the trial orders and granted the defendant’s counterclaim with specified refunds; the appeal succeeded.
OFOE, J.A:
In this delivery we will refer to the parties as they were designated at the trial court-plaintiff/respondent as plaintiff and the defendant/appellant as defendant.
After conducting a review of the record of appeal as we are enjoined to on the authorities of Tuakwa vrs Bosom (2001-2002) SCGLR 61, Djin vrs Brako (2007-2008) SCGLR 686 what became very clear to us was that narrowing down consideration of this appeal to whether the plaintiff had effectively established the identity of the land he was laying claim to should dispose of this appeal. Identity of his land, in the circumstances of this case meaning where exactly his plot is located. For it was clear from the pleadings of the parties that the defendant had maintained throughout the trial that he was not on the land the plaintiff was claiming to be his.
We will reproduce parts of defendant’s pleadings on this point
“5. In answer to plaintiff’s claim against the defendant as endorsed on plaintiff’s writ of summons, the defendant says that plot No 405 Kambero Residential Area was allocated to the defendant and not plot No 52. The defendant says further that she has not trespassed on plot No 52 Kambero Residential Area.
6. The defendant says that when she was served with plaintiff’s writ of summons and statement of claim she consulted a lawyer and the lawyer requested her to send a surveyor to the site to ascertain whether plots No 52 and 405 Kambero Residential Area, Tamale are one and the same plot.
7. The defendant says that the surveyor’s report indicates that plot No 52 and 405 Kambero Residential Area, Tamale are two separate plots on the ground.
8. The defendant further says that the surveyor’s report also indicates that plot No 405 and some other plots on the same line with the defendant’s plot are not shown on the plan scheme produced by Town and Country Planning Department, Tamale”.
On consideration of the entire record of appeal it is our thinking that such pleadings which brings into sharp focus whether the parties are fighting over the same land should relegate the title of the respective grantors of the parties to the back stage of the trial. Proof of the respective grantor’s title assumes prominence in the trial only if it is determined that both are fighting over the same plot. We noted that the trial went on full blown for the determination of the issues set for trial which are captured at page 60 as follows:
“1. Whether or not the disputed land form part of Kpambe