JAAS CO. LIMITED & TOGBE HORNOMENU v. EDWARD APAU & MADAM AKUA ACHEMPOMAA

JUDGMENT

JONES DOTSE (J.S.C)

The facts in this appeal admit of no controversy whatsoever.

The Plaintiff/Appellant and Co-Plaintiff/Appellants hereinafter referred to as the 1st and 2nd Appellants claimed in their amended writ of summons in the High Court, against the Defendant/Respondent and later the Co-Defendant/Respondent hereinafter also referred to as the 1st and 2nd Respondents respectively, the following reliefs:

“Declaration of title to all that piece of land at North Odorkor measuring on the North West by 300 feet more or less, South East by 70 feet more or less, North East by 70 feet more or less and South West by 70 feet more or less.

Damages for trespass.

Recovery of Possession and

Injunction”.

The 1st Appellant’s claim is that, he purchased this piece of land for valuable consideration from the 2nd Appellant. The 1st Appellant further contended that his vendor, the 2nd Appellant, was adjudged victorious in Civil Appeal No. 25/80 entitled

ASHALEY OKOE

VRS

TOGBE HAHORMENE III & ANOR.

and declared to be the absolute owner of all the land. The Appellants also claimed that the land in dispute before the High Court forms part of the land in respect of the Civil Appeal referred to supra.

The Appellants, provoked by the entry of the 1st Respondent on to the land, initiated the action against him in the High Court claiming the reliefs referred to supra. The 1st Respondent, later joined by the 2nd Respondent upon an order of the High Court, also filed a counterclaim and claimed to have purchased the land from its original owners the Asere stool.

After trial, the High Court Accra, presided over by Lutterodt J, as she then was, dismissed the Appellants’ claims before the court and gave judgment to the Respondents on their counterclaim.

Out of abundance of caution, this is what Lutterodt J, said in her judgment delivered on 31-7-91:

“Ordinarily the dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ claim should have ended the matter and left the defendants in possession possibly until another challenger emerges. But, because of their counterclaim I would proceed to determine whether or not they are entitled to the reliefs sought. The co-defendant acquired title from the defendant.

I think they each succeeded in establishing a prima facie case of title to the land in dispute. We do not only have their respective deeds but the evidence of their grantor showing the land was validly granted by him with the consent and concurrence of the accredited elders of the Ase