Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
HENRY KWOFIE J.A:
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Kumasi dated the 7th of December 2012. The judgment the subject of the appeal followed an application by the defendant/applicant/appellant Pinamang Genfi for Judicial Review in the nature of certiorari to quash the judgment of the District Magistrate Court, Kumasi. The High Court dismissed the application.
The facts of the case culminating in this appeal are that the plaintiff/interested party issued a writ of summons against the defendant/applicant/appellant at the District Court, Kumasi for the following reliefs:
i) an order for a declaration of title and recovery of possession of all that piece and parcel of land situate at a place commonly called SUAME-KUMASI Plot No. 18 Block A “Site S and sharing boundaries with Nurom Hotel which the defendant has presently trespassed unto.
ii) An order for ejection of defendant from the said parcel of land forthwith.
Judgment was given on the 17th February 2012 in favour of the interested party who was the plaintiff by the District Court, Kumasi presided over by His Worship K.B. Filson.
The defendant/applicant/appellant aggrieved by the said decision and contending that the District Court had breached the rules of natural justice applied to the High Court for an order of Judicial Review in the nature of Certiorari to quash the said judgment. The High Court upon hearing the application dismissed same on 7th November 2012 and the judgment thereof is the subject matter of this appeal. By a Notice of appeal filed on 28th June 2013 pursuant to an order for extension of time to appeal granted on 24th June 2013, the defendant/applicant/appellant lodged the instant appeal on the following grounds:
a. That the ruling is against the weight of evidence
b. Additional grounds to be filed on receipt of record of proceedings
Pursuant to leave granted by the Court of Appeal on 20th December 2017, the applicant/appellant filed three (3) additional grounds of appeal as follows:
i) The High Court judge misconstrued the case of the defendant/applicant/appellant and disabled himself from making a fair and impartial decision when he stated that land matters require more stringent proof whereas the matter before him was not a land matter but an application for certiorari
ii) The High Court judge misconstrued the case of the defendant/applicant/appellant and disabled himself from making a fair and impartial decision when he stated that:
“there