KOBINA AKROMAH BEDFORD v. GEORGE ASIAMAH & ANOTHER
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- VICTOR OFOE JA (PRESIDING)
- A M. DORDZIE JA
- SENYO DZAMEFE JA
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff claimed tenancy rights to a property following his father's death, but the house was sold to the 1st defendant. The Circuit Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, and the plaintiff appealed. The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming the Circuit Court’s decision. The plaintiff failed to prove any legal tenancy relationship with the property owner (TDC). Legal principles involved included the need for the plaintiff to establish title and the appellant's onus to show lapses in judgment when claiming a decision is against the weight of evidence.
A.M DORDZIE JA:
FACTS:
The Plaintiff/appellant herein claims he is the son of one C. C. Bedford (deceased). Until his death the said C. C. Bedford was occupying a room in house Number AM 15 Community 7 Tema as tenant of the 2nd defendant, Tema Development Corporation (TDC). The plaintiff lived with the father in the same house. He maintains that at the father’s death he became the sitting tenant of the house; he continues to pay rent to TDC in his deceased father’s name. Irrespective of that the house had been allocated and sold to the 1st defendant.
By a writ of summons dated 16th September 1996 the appellant herein sued the defendants in the Circuit Court Tema for the following reliefs:
a) A declaration of title to house number AM 15 Community 7 Tema
b) Recovery of possession of the room occupied by the 1st defendant.
c) A declaration that the purported transfer of legal tenancy and sale of the house to the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant is null and void and of no effect.
d) A declaration that the 2nd defendants are estopped from denying plaintiff legal tenancy of the house.
e) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and/or servants from forcibly ejecting the plaintiff from house Number AM 15 Community 7, Tema, or in any way interfering with his title to the house.
The defendants denied plaintiff’s claims and the 1st defendant counter claimed for
a) Recovery of possession of a room occupied by the plaintiff
b) Damages for Trespass.
The Circuit Court did not find merit in the plaintiff’s claims and therefore dismissed same. The court upheld the 1st defendant’s counter claim for recovery of possession of the room occupied by the plaintiff and dismissed the counter claim for damages for trespass as not proved.
GROUND OF APPEAL
The plaintiff dissatisfied with the decision of the court below instituted this appeal on the sole ground that the judgment is against the weight of evidence; the plaintiff therefore seeks this court to set aside the judgment of the Circuit Court and judgment entered for him.
The plaintiff by this ground of appeal is alleging that there is sufficient evidence on the record if properly considered would have given him judgment in the matter. This court therefore must re-evaluate the evidence addressing the lapses he is complaining of and decide the case in his favour.
It is incumbent on the appellant and his counsel to demonstrate in the written submission which argues the appeal that the lapses