JANET OWUSUA ASENSO vs MADAM MARY OHENEWA PER HER LAWFUL ATTORNEY HAROLDOKO-ASAMOAH
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE CYNTHIA MARTINSON (MRS)
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an appeal against a judgment granting declaration of title to a piece of land in Pepease to the Respondent. The Appellant challenged the trial court's decision on several grounds, including the exclusion of site plans and the weight of evidence. The High Court, upon review, found that while the trial judge erred in excluding the site plans, this error did not affect the overall outcome. The court determined that the Respondent had successfully proven her root of title to the disputed land, while the Appellant failed to do so. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment. The case highlights important principles in land litigation, including the burden of proof, the significance of unchallenged evidence, and the role of independent witnesses in corroborating claims.
This appeal is emanating from the judgment of the District Court, Abetifi-Kwahu before his Worship Mr. Alomatu a District Magistrate.
The JUDGEMENT is dated the 10th day of February, 2020. Plaintiff/Appellant(hereinafter called the Appellant) filed his writ on 14th of August, 2018 before the trial Court claiming the following reliefs against the Defendant/Respondent(hereinafter called the Respondent) for the following reliefs: a) A declaration of title to that piece and parcel of land situated and lying at Pepease sharing boundary with Pepease market and Pepease Abetifi Road known as plot No. 5. b) An Order of Interim Injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents’servants, and workmen from digging a manhole on the disputed land c) Trespass The writ was accompanied by an eight paragraph statement of claim.
The Respondent resisted the action by filing an eight-paragraph statement of defence and counterclaimed as follows: i] A declaration of title to plot no 9 ii] General Damages for Trespass iii] Perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff, her assigns agents, and personal representative from entering the said plot to do anything forth with.
iv] Dismissal of the case with cost. It should be recalled that One Madam Ohenewah Effah joined the action; however, she donated a Power of Attorney for her son Harold Oko-Asamoah to stand in her stead.
Later the title of the suit was amended on the 16th of January 2019 as follows: Janet Owusu Asenso Vrs. 1] Kwasi Boateng 2] Harold Oko-Asamoah Counsel for the Respondent then drew the attention of the Court that the 1st Defendant Kwasi Boateng is an unnecessary party and so on the 11th of February 2019, the Court granted leave for further amendment without any opposition instead of nonsuiting 1st Defendant.
Then title was subsequently amended to include only Mary Ohenewaah Effah suing per her lawful Attorney, Harold Oko-Asamoah.
When the matter came up for hearing, the Appellant testified and called one witness.
When the Respondent took her turn, her attorney testified and called two witnesses before the trial court.
CW1, a surveyor, also testified before the Court.
After hearing the parties and their witnesses in the case, the trial Judge entered judgment in favour of the Respondent.
This is found at pages 127 to 141 of the Record of Appeal (ROA). The Appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court mounted this appeal on the following grounds: 1. The judgment was against the weight