2004
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On appeal from the High Court in Accra, the Court of Appeal (per Akamba, J.A.) reversed a judgment that had dismissed the claim of the long-possessing landowner and granted the defendants’ counterclaim. The plaintiff, who bought the land from the Asere Stool in 1947 and received an indenture from Nii Akrama II in 1961, had fenced the parcel and allowed activities on it to ward off encroachers. Defendants asserted title through a 1996 conveyance from DW1, rooted in earlier gifts and a 1990 deed of variation. A court-ordered composite plan (Exhibit HC1) revealed that none of the parties’ site plans matched the disputed parcel. Scrutinizing DW1’s conduct, the court found the variation fraudulent and canceled the resulting Land Certificate. Applying the preponderance standard and land-law principles, the court held plaintiff’s continuous possession and equitable priority prevailed, allowed the appeal, granted all reliefs (declaration, possession, trespass damages, and injunction), dismissed the counterclaim, and awarded damages and costs.
JUDGMENT
J. B. AKMBA, J.A
This is an appeal against the decision of Mrs. Vida Akoto Bamfo. J.A, sitting as an additional High Court Judge in the High Court Accra dated 22nd March 2002 in which she dismissed the claim of the plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff). She then entered judgment in favour of the defendants/respondents (hereinafter referred to simply as defendants) and granted the entire reliefs claimed in their counterclaim.
The plaintiff’s claim against the defendants jointly and severally were for:
(i) "Declaration of title to all that parcel of land situate at North Odorkor bounded on the North East by Asere Stool land measuring 140 feet more or less on the south East by Asere stool land measuring 100 feet more or less and on the South-West by a proposed road measuring 140 feet more or less and covering in area approximately 0.32 Acre.
(ii) Recovery of possession.
(iii) Damages for trespass.
(iv) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants/agents and privies whatsoever from entering the land in dispute, remaining thereon, carrying on any work whatsoever thereon or in any manner interfering with the plaintiff’s ownership and or possession of the said land pending the final determination of this suit.
(v) Any other relief found due"
In their counterclaim, the defendants’ also sought the following against the plaintiff:
(a) "Recovery of possession of the land comprised in the said conveyance dated 6th September 1996.
(b) Damages for trespass thereto, and
(c) A perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff, his servants, agents, privies whomsoever or otherwise howsoever from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the defendants possession or control of their said brother’s land comprised in the said conveyance dated 6 September 1996."
The plaintiff who is dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court has appealed to this court on the following grounds:—
(i) The judgment is against the weight of evidence
(ii) The learned trial Judge failed to give adequate consideration to the case of the plaintiff in the judgment
(iii) Further grounds will be filed on receipt of the record of proceedings.
Four additional grounds have since been filed for determination namely:
(a) The learned trial judge erred in failing to make any finding or determination on the copious evidence of plaintiff’s continuous possession and repeated exercise of right of ownership of the land in dispute since 1947 and its eff