Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
J U D G M E N T
ATUGUBA, J.S.C.
The substantially common facts of this consolidated appeal are briefly that the Appellants are both retired army officers. Whilst attached to the Castle in the 1980s while still in active military service they procured through the then Chief of Staff the 3 disputed plots of land, noted for them, from the Lands Department. These plots formed part of land vested in the Government of Ghana. They were swampy areas and they were made to understand that unless they developed them significantly, leases would not be granted to them. They did so by expending considerable sums of money filling up these plots and in the case of Mac Dorbi, constructing the foundation of a building and a sceptic tank.
In the course of events the 1st respondent professing to be a grantee of these same lands, of Nii Kotey III of La, entered upon them and discovered the developments of Mac Dorbi, whose workman Bartholomew, known as Bato for short, informed him that he held Mac Dorbi’s plots as joint ownership for them both. The 1st respondent without recourse to Mac Dorbi decided to buy off their interest, rather sadly, at the gargantuan amount of twenty thousand US Dollars ($20, 000).
Since Mac Dorbi and W. O. Saviour, the appellants, would not relinquish their claims to the land this litigation inevitably ensued. The trial judge Ofoe J (as he then was) reviewed the evidence at length and gave judgment in favour of the appellants, but was reversed on appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal per Kanyoke J.A. held, inter alia, that there were conflicts between the appellants’ pleadings and evidence as to the identities of the lands, their manner and source of acquisition.
It is trite learning that the credibility of witnesses is a matter for the trial judge who has the unique advantage of a live trial atmosphere, unpossessed by an appellate court and provided there is evidence to support his findings, the same should not be disturbed by an appellate court. Indeed there is a presumption that trial findings of fact are right. It is further solidly established that where a party’s evidence is supported by the admissions or evidence of his opponent then, barring very exceptional circumstances, judgment should be given in favour of such a party. See Asante v. Bogyabi (1966) GLR 232, SC, Banahene v. Adinkra (1976) 1 GLR 346, CA, Agyakuma v. Opuni (1987-88) 1 GLR 47, SC at 50, Bisi v. Tabiri (1987) 1 GLR 360, SC, holdings (5) and (6) and Manu v. Nsi