HAMMOND v. ODOI AND ANOTHER

JUDGMENT OF PREMPEH J.S.C.

This is an application by the plaintiff-respondent-applicant (hereinafter referred to shortly as the applicant) for an order for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the majority judgment of this court in Odoi v. Hammond [1971] 1 G.L.R. 375, C.A. given on 21 December 1970, setting aside the judgment of Apaloo J.A., as he then was, sitting as an additional judge of the High Court, Accra. The majority decision of this court from which Siriboe J.S.C. dissented was delivered by Azu Crabbe J.A., as he then was, and Sowah J.A.

In order the better to appreciate the reason why leave to appeal had to be sought from this court, it is necessary in the first place to know the nature of the proceedings which were commenced in the trial court, and to refer also to the provisions of the law then applicable, that regulated the procedure for appeals from this court to the Supreme Court.

The claim of the applicant against the defendants-appellants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) as stated in his writ of summons was for:

"(1) A declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land situate lying and being at Kotobabi Accra and bounded on the north by Osu Stool land measuring 140 feet on the south by a proposed road measuring 140 feet on the east by plaintiff's land measuring 100 feet and on the west by a proposed road measuring 100 feet.

(2) £G500 damages for trespass.

(3) Perpetual injunction against the defendants, their servants, workmen and agents from entering the said land."

I think it is just enough at this stage to mention that the pleadings which were filed in the trial court have been fully reproduced in the judgment of this court (Odoi v. Hammond (supra)), and as to their effect and importance I cannot but agree in toto with the preliminary remarks of Azu Crabbe J.A. when he said at p. 379 that, "The statement of claim endorsed on the writ and of the statement of defence are both important."

At the end of the trial, the learned High Court judge pronounced judgment in favour of the applicant, against which the respondents appealed to this court, which in turn reversed it on several grounds including questions of law and mixed law and fact; it is against this judgment that the application has been brought.

[p.462]

Article 105 (1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Constitution, 1969, lay down the requirements under which an appeal shall lie from this court to the Supreme Court. It provides as follows: