KYIRIKUM KPAARE v. AZURE AMADU

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE GEORGINA MENSAH-DATSA (MRS.) J.A.

This is an appeal by the Plaintiff/Appellant (hereinafter Appellant) against the judgment of the High Court, Sefwi Wiawso dated 27th May, 2015 which dismissed the Appellant’s claim and entered judgment for the Defendant/Respondent (hereinafter Respondent) on his counterclaim.

The grounds of appeal are as follows:

1. The judgment is against the weight of evidence adduced before the Court.

2. The trial judge failed to appreciate the issues at stake properly and wrongfully dismissed the plaintiff’s case.

3. Additional grounds of appeal shall be filed upon receipt of the proceedings.

The Appellant seeks from this Court that the decision of the High Court, Sefwi Wiawso contained in the judgment of 27/5/2015 be set aside or reversed including all the consequential orders in favour of the Respondent and enter judgment for the Appellant.

The Appellant instituted the action on 4/10/1995 against the Appellant claiming the following reliefs:

a. A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of 1/3 of that parcel of land lying and situate at Akatiso on Bonzain Stool land, bounded by the farms of Opanin Kwame Nkrumah, Kwaku Appiah, Opanin Asare, Menemane Dagarti, Kwasi Afful, Kwasi Agyei and a streamlet.

b. General damages for trespass and an order for accounts.

c. An order to the defendant to carve 1/3 of the disputed land described in paragraph (a) supra to the plaintiff.

d. An order for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant and assigns, from interfering or dealing with the plaintiff’s 1/3 portion of the disputed land.

The Respondent counter claimed against the Appellant as follows:

A declaration of title to all that parcel of cocoa farm at Akaatiso and bounded by the properties of Agya Sie Fantra, Kyiri Kum, Seidu Kambu, Yamba Grumah and Adwoa Kumah.

The brief facts of this case are that Appellant and the Respondent are brothers and farmers who together with one Merimari Dagarti went to acquire land from one Nana Atta. According to the Appellant, the three (3) of them acquired a two (2) mile stretch of land but the said Dagarti was given half (½) a mile of the two (2) miles of the land. The Appellant contends that he and the Respondent jointly owned the remaining one and half (1½) mile of land but because the Respondent is his elder brother it was agreed that the latter’s name be used on the documents covering the land. The Appellant claimed that it was agreed between the Res