Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
MARIAMA OWUSU, J. A.
On the 22-11-06, the High Court, Accra dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim as not proved.
The court then entered judgment for the Defendant for the portion of land it occupies.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the court, the Plaintiff appealed to this court.
The Grounds of Appeal are as follows:
a. That the judgment is against the weight of evidence adduced.
b. That further grounds of appeal will be filled upon receipt of the courts reasons and the Record of Proceedings.
Relief sought from the Court of Appeal: To set aside the judgment of the trial Judge and enter judgment for the Appellant.
Before going into the merits or otherwise of this appeal, I would like to give a brief background of this case.
The Plaintiff issued the writ of summons claiming the following reliefs:
1. Declaration of Title to Plot No. 52 LAND TITLE REGISTRY MAP No. 004/031/88.
2. Perpetual Injunction Restraining the Defendant and all of its Agents, Assigns, Workmen, Employees, whatsoever from interfering with the churches enjoyment of the demised land.
3. General Damages for Trespass to land.
In its 17 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff avers among other things that, it acquired a 50 year lease from the family of the late Charles Annan Vanderpuye on 23/7/1971. Thereafter, it obtained a supplementary Confirmatory Deed by which the earlier grant in 1971 was to run from 1980. They also had the said lease registered at the Land Title Registry.
It is note worthy that Charles Annan Vanderpuye died testate and his Will was admitted to probate on 7-7-1952. In the Will of Charles Annan Vanderpuye his sister Christiana Vanderpuye who is the Plaintiff’s grantor was given a life interest in the disputed property.
The Plaintiff continues that by clause 9(7) of the said Will, the disputed property was devised by the testator to his sister Christiana Vanderpuye for her own use and benefit during her life time and upon her death, the remainder to the testator’s family.
It is the Plaintiff’s case that the testator apart from giving its grantor a life interest in the disputed property also appointed her as the head of the testator’s family.
In addition the testator had a clause in his Will to the effect that none of his properties including the disputed property could be alienated except by the head of his family together with the consent of the three eldest female members of his family.
It is the case of the Plaintiff that, the testator’s family aliena