LUMOR BORTEY BORQUAYE VS ALHAJI ABDUL AZIZ & ANOR

BRIGHT MENSAH JA:

The plaintiff/appellant herein has launched the instant appeal against the decision of High Court, [Land Division] Accra, delivered 13/02/2019 in favour of the defendants/respondents.

Per a notice of appeal filed with this court on 21/03/2019, the plaintiff/appellant complains that:

1. The judgment is against the weight of evidence.

2. The entire judgment was ambiguous and failed to provide reasons for the conclusions arrived at.

3. The trial judge erred by not following the decisions of the superior courts which are binding on her.

4. The trial judge disregarded and did not determine at all the plaintiff/appellant’s issues 8 and 9 raised on the pleadings and argued in the submission but rather held erroneously and contrary to the evidence on record that the plaintiff/appellant did not raise any issues on the pleadings.

5. The learned trial judge ignored the call for superimposition of plans raised in the plaintiff’s issues for determination and paid no attention to all the documentary evidence placed before her for the determination of the identity, location and ownership of the disputed land, resulting in miscarriage of justice to the plaintiff/appellant by her holding that the “evidence led establishes that the land in dispute does not belong to the Nungua Stool”. 6. The trial judge was wrong in holding that the plaintiff/appellant’s action was statute barred from 2001 to 2019 when the evidence on the record clearly shows that there was a legal action challenging the defendants/ respondents occupation of the disputed land from 2003-2011. 7. The trial judge acted under misapprehension of facts in holding that the plaintiff/appellant’s action was caught by estoppel res judicata when that judgment based on Teshie Stool Odartei Tse We family grant cannot be used to lay claim to the disputed Adjirigannor lands declared by the courts to be Nungua Stool land, against the same Odartei Tse We family.

8. The trial judge erred by holding that the plaintiff/appellant’s action is statute barred while at the same time holding that the plaintiff/appellant is estopped per res judicata by a litigation that lasted from 2003-2011. 9. The trial judge misapplied the facts and the law when she held in one breadth that Adjiriganor lands belonged to the Nungua Stool alright but in another breadth held contrary that the evidence adduced did not establish that the land in dispute belonged to the Nungua Stool and or the plaintiff/appellant.

10.