Ibrahim Issah v. Billy Ananful & ANOR

MARIAMA OWUSU, J. A. :

On 30-11-2007, the Circuit Court, Accra gave judgment for the Plaintiff against the defendant and co-defendant.

The court held among other things as follows: “Once the co-defendant has counterclaim for a declaration of title to the land in dispute, he was duty bound to lead evidence to establish his title to the said land and to failure to call his grantors to testify in the circumstances of this case, is very fatal to his case.

Thus, the claim of the co-defendant stands without any proof.

On the contrary, the plaintiff and his witness have satisfied me by their evidence to the court that the land subject matter of dispute is the property of the Ayawaso Stool and that it was validly granted the plaintiff herein.

Accordingly, I declare that the land in dispute which is vividly discounted in the endorsement on the plaintiff’s Writ of Summons is the property of the plaintiff herein.

The co-defendant’s counterclaim is therefore dismissed.

There is evidence on record to the effect that when the defendant and co-defendant started building on the land, the plaintiff warned them to stop but they paid no heed.

Indeed this action of the defendant and co-defendant amounts to trespass and defendants are therefore liable in damages to the plaintiff.

I access general damages for trespass ¢10, 000, 000. 00 in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant and co-defendant.

I will grant the plaintiff claim for recovery of possession of the land in dispute and consequently, perpetually restrain the co-defendant, defendant, their agents, assigns, workmen, servants and all others claiming through them from in any manner interring with the plaintiff’s possession and quiet enjoyment of the land in dispute.

I will award cost of ¢10, 000, 000. 00 to the plaintiff against the defendant and the co-defendant. ”Dissatisfied with the decision of the court, the defendant and co-defendant appealed to this court.

The Grounds of Appeal are:

i. That the learned trial Judge erred in law and on the facts when he failed to appreciate that by suborning false witness and evidence and by endeavouring to have recourse to perjury the plaintiff admitted that he had a bad case.

ii. That the learned trial Judge abandoned his legal duty by failing to make critical analysis of the evidence before arriving at his judgment and thereby causing substantial miscarriage of justice to the appellants.

iii. That the learned trial Judge erred in law and on the facts when he