JOHN HOLDBROOK YANKAH v. ALHAJI MAMA & ORS

JUDGMENT

MARFUL-SAU, JA:- This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court , Fast Track Division dated the 25th January 2012. In the said judgment the action by the plaintiff who is the appellant herein was dismissed and the 3rd defendant who is the respondent in this appeal was ordered to attorn tenancy to the Lands Commission, the owners of the land in dispute as found by the trial court. The facts of the case as gathered from the appeal record is simply that the appellant acquired the land in dispute from the Osu Stool, while the respondent also acquired the same land from the 1st and 2nd defendants both of whom did not contest the action as the trial was a contest between the appellant as plaintiff and the respondent as the 3rd defendant. Evidence on record revealed that both parties developed portions of the land in dispute at different times.

The appellant took possession of the land in 2003, erected structures on the land and put in a caretaker who was ousted from the land by the respondent when he decided to construct a storey building on a portion of the land. The record also showed that during the pendency of the action, the appellant applied to the Lands Commission and eventually got the Commission to regularise his interest in the land. At the end of the trial the trial court found that both parties were trespassers, since there was no dispute that the land had been acquired by the Government and same vested in the Lands Commission. The trial court also found appellant’s conduct during the process of regularising his interest in the land fraudulent and as such dismissed the appellant’s claim and ordered that the respondent attorn tenancy to the Lands Commission. It is against this judgment that the appellant has appealed to this court on the following grounds:-

a. That the judgment was perverse and against the weight of evidence.

b.That the trial Judge failed to appreciate that as against the defendant/respondent the appellant had a better right to possessory title of the disputed land.

c. That the trial Judge’s finding of fraud against the appellant was baseless being unsupported by the evidence on record.

From the record of appeal no additional ground was filed even though in the notice of appeal, appellant gave an indication that he will file additional grounds on receipt of the appeal record. I intend to address grounds (a) and (b) together since by the said grounds the appellant is simply complaining that the trial judge failed