MADAM AKOSUA ADADE v. OKESSEKU MINTAH (SUBST. BY LAWRENCE MINTAH AFARI)

LOVELACE-JOHNSON, JSC: -

The designation of the parties at the high court will be maintained in this appeal.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for the sum of 206,000 cedis being the cost of damage caused to her building by the latter when he used a caterpillar to raze it down. She also claimed interest on this sum from February 2018 to the date of final payment. The trial court found an amount of 45,551.68 cedis proved and granted that to her with interest at the commercial bank rate from April 2018 to the date of final payment and costs of 20,000 cedis.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the defendant launched an appeal to the court of appeal on the following grounds:

a) The judgement is against the weight of evidence.

b) The judge erred by setting aside a High Court judgment on grounds of fraud when neither fraud was pleaded nor evidence lead on fraud.

c) The judge erred when she set aside a High Court judgment on grounds of fraud in addition to granting other relieves for the Plaintiff in the same suit.

d) The judge erred when she somoto vacated and set aside a court of Appeal Stay of Execution on the subject matter in Suit number 58/03 where no demand on same was made by any of the parties.

e) That the judge exceeded her jurisdiction by setting aside a High Court judgment and Court of Appeals of stay of Execution.

f) The judge erred on the assessment of damage to the subject matter.

g) The Cost of GH¢20,000.00 against the Defendant is extremely high in the circumstance of this matter.

h) Other grounds of appeal will be canvassed upon obtaining a copy of the full judgment.

The court of appeal found that only four of the above ie grounds a, b, c and e were argued in counsel’s submissions. The court considered grounds (b) and (c), found that they had merit, upheld them and stated that with this finding, no useful purpose would be served by determining ground (e) which alleged that the trial high court judge exceeded her jurisdiction when she set aside the judgment of another high court and the stay of execution granted by the court of appeal.

Under omnibus ground of appeal ie ground (a) the court upheld the finding by the high court that the defendant was ‘liable for the demolition and the Respondent is entitled to her claim’. The court however based this finding on a different ground from that of the high court (which it set aside) a