March 14, 2019
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal, per Avril Lovelace-Johnson J.A., dismissed an appeal from the High Court’s 11 August 2015 judgment that granted Defendants judgment on their counterclaim in a land dispute. Both sides traced title to Akweinas Farms. Plaintiffs, in possession since 1993, initially relied on Oshuiman family grants and later sought to “regularize” their position with Akweinas via 2007 agreements. Defendants had an earlier assignment from Akweinas dated 15 June 2002. The court held Plaintiffs must prove root of title and that their regularization could not confer title because Akweinas had already divested its title to Defendants (nemo dat). DW1, Francis Adjetey Sowah, was competent under the Evidence Act. The court upheld cancellation of Plaintiffs’ Land Title Certificates on grounds of fraud and mistake, noting a 2000 search confirming Akweinas’ 1974 lease and rejecting arguments about land use given a 1990 residential approval. The appeal, including the omnibus ground, was dismissed; costs of GH₵10,000 were awarded to Defendants.
J U D G M E N T
AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON (J A):
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated the 11th of August 2015 by which the said court gave the Defendants/Respondents judgment on their counterclaim.
Being dissatisfied with this, the Plaintiffs/Appellants have launched the present appeal. The parties will be referred to simply as Plaintiffs and Defendants hereon.
Eight grounds of appeal were filed. These are
i. The Judgement is against the weight of the evidence adduced.
ii. The Learned High Court Judge failed to give adequate consideration to Exhibit N which authorized Akweinas Farms to change the user of the land to residential purpose.
iii. The Learned High Court Judge erred in law when she held that the Defendant’s/Respondent’s grant predates that of the Plaintiffs/Applicants without properly evaluating the contents of the Defendants/respondents Indenture.
iv. The Learned High Court Judge erred in law when she held that the Plaintiffs’/appellants’ did not obtain a valid grant from Ablekuma and Akweinas Farms despite being in possession since 1993
v. The Learned High Court Judge erred in law when she gave sufficient weight to the testimony of DW1 as having authority to testify on behalf of Akweinas Farms without any authority note.
vi. The Learned High Court erred in giving sufficient consideration to the testimony of the DW1 when the same person acted as witnesses for alienation of the land in dispute.
vii. The Learned High Court erred when she held that despite the Plaintiffs’/Appellants’ Land Title Certificate not being not being obtained by fraud same should be cancelled.
viii. The Learned High Court Judge erred when she failed to give sufficient consideration to the fact that the Defendants/Respondents were fixed with notice of the Plaintiffs’/Appellants’ occupation and possession of the land at the time they purported to acquire same.
ix. Further or other grounds of appeal to be filed on receipt of the Record of Appeal.
Contrary to ground IX, no additional grounds of appeal were filed.
It is my considered opinion that consideration of the other grounds of appeal whether alleging errors of law or errors in findings by the trial judge will essentially deal with the omnibus ground that the judgment is against the weight of evidence. This is because it is now settled that it is proper to consider both factual and legal issues in examining such a ground of appeal. See the case of
Attorney-General v Faroe Atlantic Co