JUDGMENT

ASIEDU, JSC:

[1. 0]. INTRODUCTION:

My lords, this is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Accra, dated the 5th of April, 2023. In the said judgment, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the trial High Court which was delivered in favour of the Defendants/Respondents/Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the Appellants). The Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent shall hereinafter be referred to as the Respondent.

[2. 0]. NOTICE OF APPEAL

By a notice of appeal filed on the 2nd May 2023, the Appellants formulated the following grounds of appeal:

(a)The Court of Appeal erred in law when, in the face of clear evidence that the Defendants/Respondents/Appellants before them had been in effective possession of their land since 2003 (more than 12 years) without being sued by the Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent who was before them, the Court of Appeal failed to enforce section 10 of the Limitations Act, 1971 (NRCD 54), a statute binding on the court against the Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent and to dismiss his action as statute barred.

(b)The Court of Appeal misunderstood and misapplied the doctrine of per incuriam which is limited to binding statute or decision of a higher court on point of law, but they wrongly sought to apply it in another case based on findings of facts whereas the parties and subject matter were different.

(c) The Court of Appeal erred in law when they failed to apply the doctrine of res judicatem against the Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent before them on account of the subsisting judgement in favour of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent/Appellant before them in the case of NISSA Developers Limited versus Kwame Ayew which was in respect of the very parcel of land in dispute in this case and that case is binding against the Nungua Stool and the Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent as privies of Nissa Developers Limited, even if not as parties.

(d)The Court of Appeal erred in law when they repeatedly said “Adjiriganor lands have been held to be Nungua Stool lands”, a statement by which they referred to Adjiriganor lands at large, whereas all the judgements they relied on only declared specified delineated lands as part of Nungua Stool land and the land in dispute in this case had never been so declared.

(e)The Court of Appeal erred in law when they failed, in the alternative, to follow the binding judicial preced