JAMES OKPATA v. DR. R. A. M. HAMMOND
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- FRANCIS KUSI-APPIAH J.A. (PRESIDING)
- MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.
- FRANCIS KORBIEH J.A
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff sued the defendant for title to land in Kponkpo, an injunction, and recovery of possession, asserting the land was a gift for services rendered. The High Court rejected both the plaintiff's and defendant's claims, leading the defendant to appeal. The appellate court examined the evidence, found no valid customary gift was proven since there was no 'aseda' or witnesses, and therefore supported the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's claim. The appellate court upheld the defendants counterclaim, ordering the plaintiff to vacate the land and awarding costs to the defendant.
J U D G M E N T
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.
On 25-6-2009, the High Court, Accra dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim in which the latter was seeking Declaration of Title to one and half (1½) acre land at Kponkpo, Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendant from claiming the said land from the plaintiff and Recovery of Possession.
The court also refused to grant the defendant his counterclaim seeking an Order for the immediate ejectment of plaintiff from his land.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the court, the defendant appealed to this court.
The Grounds of Appeal are:
1. The judgment of His Lordship cannot be supported in law having regard to the evidence.
2. Further grounds of appeal will be filed on receipt of the record of proceedings.
The Relief sought from the court:
1. Ejectment of respondent for challenging appellant’s title.
Before going into the arguments canvassed in support of this case, I will like to give a brief background of this case.
The plaintiff issued this Writ claiming the following reliefs:
1. Declaration that the 1½ acre land given to the plaintiff at Kponkpo to live and work on it by the defendant should remain the property of the plaintiff.
2. Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant from claiming the said land from the plaintiff.
3. Recovery of possession.
The schedule of the land at Kponkpo is bounded on three sides as follows: One side with Kwade We land, on the second side with Abetifi We land and on the third side with Pantan Village, covering an area of 1½ acres.
In the 18 paragraph Statement of Claim which accompanied the plaintiff’s writ of summons, the latter avers amongst other things that, he is a farmer and lives at Kponkpo village near Teiman. He avers further that, he came to live on the land part of which is in dispute in 1980 with the permission of one Nortey a grandson of Lokko who owned hundreds of acres of land at Kponkpo.
The plaintiff continues that, the land which includes the land in dispute was willed to defendant’s parents and on the death of defendant’s parents the defendant and one Fred Lokko inherited the land. It is the case of the plaintiff that when the land was shared between defendant and Fred Lokko, he lived on the portion of Fred Lokko for 11 years. The plaintiff avers further that sometime in 1991, the defendant came onto his portion of the land introduced himself to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant engaged his services as caretaker of defendant’s land and asked him