KOFI SARFO VS VIVIAN ODOOM

In an Application by the Defendant to dismiss the suit on the grounds of res judicata, the Court differently constituted opined that a Composite Plan for a super imposition should be drawn up.

The Order for the preparation of a Composite Plan was poignantly carried out.

The Report was subjected to cross-examination of the Surveyor pursuant to an Application in accordance with Order 26 (4) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 (C. I. 47). Per the outcome of the survey conducted, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant claimed the same land.

However, while the land of the Plaintiff on his Site Plan attached to the Land Certificate and what was shown on the ground tallied, that of the Defendant did not tally.

The Defendant again did not attach his Judgment plan.

It was also gleaned from the proceedings that the acreage of the Defendant’s land varied from his survey instructions and the amended one.

By the failure of the Defendant to produce the Judgment plan to enable the Court know whether it is the very land the Plaintiff is claiming in this Court, and the fact that the Surveyor observed different dimensions for the Defendant’s land, it becomes difficult for the Court to reason with the Defendant that the land in the earlier suit is the basis for which he is seeking to dismiss the instant suit is in respect of the same.

Accordingly, I dismiss the Motion seeking to dismiss the present action.

(SGD. ) H/L ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT.