2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
A panel of the Supreme Court of Ghana comprising Baffoe‑Bonnie JSC (presiding), Prof. Kotey JSC, Lovelace‑Johnson JSC, Amadu JSC, and Prof. Mensa‑Bonsu JSC reviewed a land title dispute arising from conflicting decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal concerning a 441.98‑acre parcel at Obosomase in the Akuapem South District. The Respondent asserted that her father, the late cocoa merchant James Winfred Afari, received the land in 1953 from the Aduana‑Abrade Family (Mankrado Stool of Obosomase) in appreciation for financing litigation involving Ahwerase and Obosomase; he later gifted it to her in 1986 by customary “aseda.” She occupied and exercised dominion, licensing farmers. The High Court awarded only 30 acres, citing identity and boundary deficiencies. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding Exhibit “A” (1953 conveyance) and Exhibit “D” (2011 site plan) established identity and noting the Appellants’ inconsistent acreage assertions. Applying the Evidence Act’s burden‑of‑proof regime and land‑identification precedents, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and effectively restored the Court of Appeal’s grant of all reliefs, including title to the entire 441.98 acres.
AMADU JSC:-
INTRODUCTION:
The main issue for our determination in the instant appeal is, which of the two lower courts properly appreciated and evaluated the evidence on record and ascribed to it the proper probative value before arriving at their respective conclusions. This is because while the trial court from its evaluation of the evidence, findings and conclusions held that the Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent”) was entitled to only thirty (30) acres of the land in dispute and entered judgment in her favour, the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal from their own reevaluation of the evidence held otherwise by granting to the Respondent all the reliefs endorsed on her writ of summons and statement of claim including her claim to the whole of the 441.98 acres of the disputed land.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal found that, on the evidence on record, the Respondent had sufficiently discharged her statutory burden with respect to her claim against the 1st to 3rd Defendant/Respondents/Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellants”) for declaration of title to the parcel of land measuring 441.98 acres as well as the other consequential reliefs indorsed in her writ of summons.
Our determination of this appeal will therefore depend on the narrow issue of whether or not on the evidence on record, the Respondent is entitled to the whole parcel of 441.98 acres described in the schedule to her statement of claim, or that the trial court’s decision to limit the Respondent’s entitlement to only thirty (30) acres was founded on the evidence adduced at the trial.
In discharging our duty, we shall in the exercise of our power of rehearing embark on our own examination and evaluation of the evidence on record and upon the application of the relevant law determine the correctness or otherwise of the conflicting positions arrived at by the two lower courts in determining the claim of the Respondent to the total acreage of 441.98 of the lands in dispute.
THE RESPONDENT’S CASE
By an amended statement of claim filed on 24th February, 2014, the Respondent averred that she is the owner of the land, the subject matter of this dispute which contains an approximate area of 441.98 acres. The Respondent further averred that the parcel of land was originally granted to her father, the late James Winfred Afari, in 1953 for valuable consideration of the sum of Eighty British Pounds (£80.00) he gave to the land owners