IDDRISU TIFUURO TATALI v. ALHAJI SAAKA YAKUBU
2018
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANSAH, JSC
- ADINYIRA (MRS), JSC
- YEBOAH, JSC
- BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2018
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the High Court’s decision that granted the disputed land title to the appellant. The appellant argued that his family has been traditionally performing rituals on the land, asserting ownership. The trial court's findings, supported by evidence, were overturned by the Court of Appeal on grounds that were not legally tenable. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its findings for those of the trial court, in misinterpreting inconsistencies, and in concluding that the appellant failed to establish the boundaries of his land. The Supreme Court underscored the necessity for appellate restraint in questioning trial courts' credibility assessments.
JUDGMENT
BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC:-
This is an appeal by the plaintiff/respondent/appellant, against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 26th July 2013. The Court of Appeal in the said judgment allowed an appeal by the defendant/appellant/respondent against a decision of the High Court dated 17th May 2010. We shall refer to the plaintiff/respondent/appellant as the appellant, and the defendant/appellant/respondent, as the respondent.
The facts in this case are as follows. The Appellant is the head of the Tatali family of Kpongo village near Wa. The Respondent is also a farmer resident at Fongo, a section of Wa. The Appellant on 22nd May 2007 issued a writ against the Respondent in the High Court seeking the following reliefs:
1. Declaration of Title to all that piece and parcel of land lying, situate, opposite the Wa Polytechnic new site bounded on the North by the Muglu valley measuring about 1km on that side; on the West by the Wa-Kpongo road measuring about 1km on that side; on the South by Appellant’s land, on the East by Appellant’s land, which land shall be more particularly delineated by a site plan upon the orders of the court.
2. Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his heirs, successors in title and all persons whosoever claiming title through him from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful enjoyment of the land.
3. Costs of the action.
The Respondent also counter-claimed for:
a. Title to all that piece of land situate at a place called Muglu, bounded by the properties of Sokpeyiri to the North, Naa-Jara of Kpongo to the South, Kpaguri to the East and Puohounyiri to the South.
b. Costs
The case of the appellant is that by settlement his family came to own a vast land portions of which was given to one Maamani, also known as Naha Naa for farming. This arrangement came about because the said Maamani got married to a lady from the appellant’s family. According to the appellant, the land granted to Maamani is now being farmed by the relations and descendants of Maamani. He also testified at the trial that the respondent is a relation of the said Maamani. The appellant further stated that he brought this action when the respondent put up a sign post on the land signifying that he owns the land. The appellant contended that his family has been performing rituals on the land as owners of the land any time the circumstances required that the land needed purification.
The respondent on his part stated that the disputed land was