MRS VIVIAN AKU-BROWN v. SAMUEL LANQUAYE ODARTEY
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANSAH, JSC. [PRESIDING]
- ANIN YEBOAH JSC
- BAFFOE - BONNIE, JSC.
- BENIN, JSC.
- PWAMANG , JSC
Areas of Law
- Property Law
- Adverse Possession
- Statute of Limitations
- Evidence Law
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The court found that the plaintiff had established ownership of the disputed land through acts of possession and ownership for over 100 years. The defendant failed to provide credible evidence of adverse possession or ownership. The court also addressed issues related to the statute of limitations and the admissibility of evidence.
JUDGMENT
PWAMANG, JSC.
This case was commenced in May, 2006 in the High Court, Accra whereby the two parties claimed ownership of land near Abokobi in the names of their respective families. The parties pleaded two contrasting stories of how each of them acquired the land. The case of plaintiff/appellant/respondent, hereafter referred to as “plaintiff”, is that the land, containing approximately 569 acres, was acquired through settlement in 1854 by her ancestor called Ayi Blaflatsi who established a village on the land which was named “Krobiwoho”. She said her family, the Adutso Family of Osu, exercised rights of ownership over the land from that time to the time of the litigation. Defendant/respondent/appellant, to be referred to as “defendant”, on his part said his family land, which is about 593 acres, was first settled upon by his ancestor called Nii Odartey Sro over 200 years ago and that he established a village on the land and named it Adanse. He too said his family exercised rights of ownership on the land for over 200 years.
After a full trial, the High Court, in a terse two paragraph judgment dated 4 December, 2010, held that the plaintiff failed to lead evidence to positively identify the land she claimed and that her star witness was not credible. The court therefore dismissed the case of the plaintiff and granted the counterclaim of the defendant. The judge promised to give full reason for his decision but he never did.
The plaintiff appealed against the judgment to the Court of Appeal. Whilst criticising the trial judge for failing to give full reasons in which he would have stated his findings on the primary facts in dispute in the case, the court determined the appeal on the evidence on record and the submissions of the parties since an appeal is a rehearing. In its judgment the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, entered judgment for the plaintiff and dismissed the counterclaim of the defendant.
Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, defendant has appealed to this court as the final appellate court on the following grounds;
a. The court of Appeal erred when it considered the evidence of Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent star witness PW2 as reliable contrary to the specific finding of the trial judge that PW2 is unreliable.
b. The Court of Appeal erred by ignoring the Defendant/Respondent plea of statute of limitation and awarded judgment in favour of Plaintiff/Appellant thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice