GIFTY OFORIWA ADDO & ANOTHER v. PATRICK NUTOR
2019
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- HONYENUGA, JA (PRESIDING)
- LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS), JA
- POKU-ACHEAMPONG, JA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2019
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In a land dispute case, the High Court, Land Division, Accra ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, 1st plaintiff, and 2nd plaintiff Nungua Stool, dismissing the counterclaim of the defendant who claimed ownership. The defendant appealed, raising multiple grounds. The Appellate Court reviewed the entire record, including testimonies and documentary evidence. The court reaffirmed that a party litigant is not obligated to testify personally and that statutory declarations do not confer title. Additionally, fraud must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court found no merit in the appeal, affirmed the High Court’s decision, and ruled that the land in dispute belonged to the Nungua Stool.
JUDGMENT
HONYENUGA, JA
On the 16th day of June 2017, the High Court, Land Division, Accra entered judgment for the plaintiffs upon their claims and dismissed the counterclaim of the defendant.
Aggrieved with the decision of the High Court, the defendant/appellant filed an appeal to this Court based on the following grounds:-
a. The judgment is against the weight of evidence.
b. The Judge erred in law in failing to determine whether there was indeed a person called Gifty Oforiwa Addo before the Court as the 1st plaintiff.
c. The Judge erred when she declared the Nungua Stool the owners of the land in dispute and as such the 1st plaintiff the owner of the land when the reliefs being sought by the 1st plaintiff was for a grant from the Ashong Mlitse Family and not the 2nd plaintiff, the Nungua Stool.
d. The Judge erred when she concluded that 1st plaintiff’s land title certificate was issued on a lease executed between the 1st plaintiff and the 2nd plaintiff when by the evidence the land title certificate was issued based on a grant by the Ashong Mlitse Family.
e. The Judge erred when she ignored the statutory limitation period of 12 years and declared the 2nd plaintiff owners of the disputed land based on a judgment by Jackson J, dated 26th May, 1952.
f. The Judge erred when she concluded that by the Jackson report the Ashong Mlitse Family did not own land at Adjiriganor.
g. The Judge erred when she concluded that by the suit title Empire Builders Limited vrs Topkings Enterprise and Others Suit No. L94/99 the land in dispute belonged to the Nungua Stool as allodial owners.
h. The Judge erred when she concluded that the Defendant failed to prove fraud.
i. Further Grounds of Appeal to be filed upon receipt of the judgment and record of proceedings.
It is placed on record that further grounds of appeal were not filed and they are considered abandoned.
In this appeal, the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs/respondents would be simply referred to as the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs respectively, while the defendant/appellant would be referred to as the defendant.
Before I consider the written submissions, I will give a brief background leading to this case.
The 1st plaintiff claimed ownership of the disputed land by virtue of a lease between her and the Ashong Mlitse family but later attorn tenancy to the 2nd plaintiff stool after her attention was drawn to a judgment in favour of the stool. The 1st plaintiff then had another lease executed in her favour by the sto