GH - MUSAH AND ANOTHER v. TALI

JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH J.A.

Ampiah J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. The subject matter of this action is a plot of land at Ward A Extension, Tamale, numbered 67. The parties claimed to have obtained their grants from the Chorgu Na Mahama; the plaintiff's in 1974 and the co-defendant's in 1963. The plaintiff had his grant concurred in by the Chairman of the Lands Commission on 11 March 1975. This is contained in a lease tendered in evidence by the plaintiff and marked exhibit A. According to [p.49] the co-defendant however, his grant was in exchange for a plot No. 22. Even though he did not have his grant concurred in by the Lands Commission, he had documents from his grantor, and the Town and Country Planning Committee which permitted him to build on the land. These documents were tendered in evidence and marked as exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F.

There was no dispute that this land formed a portion of land which originally was vested in the Chorgu skin, and it has not been controverted that until the coming into force of the Stool Lands (Northern Region) Instrument, 1963 (E.I. 109 of 1963) the Chorgu Na had power to deal with the land. But since the coming into force of the Administration of Lands Act, 1962 (Act 123) the administration (management) of stool lands fell to be performed by the "Minister . . . to whom functions under the Act are assigned by the President."

The main issue which arose for determination in the action was, which of the two grantees had a better title to plot No. 67, Ward A Extension, Tamale. The learned trial judge resolved the issue in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly entered judgment for him. He dismissed the co-defendant's claim. The defendant and co-defendant have appealed against the judgment of the High Court, Tamale on several grounds.

Apart from ground 3 on the notice of appeal, the other grounds are dependent upon the success or failure of ground 5 which is the gravamen of the appellants' submission in this appeal. On ground 3, the appellants have argued that since there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by the defendant before the trial judge, the judge should not have non-suited the defendant.

The defendant by her statement of defence had alleged that she had nothing to do with the land and that it was her husband (Imoro Kanjarga) who owned the plot. Imoro Kanjarga was subsequently joined in the action as a co-defendant. He filed a statement of defence and counterclaimed similarly as the plaintiff. He d

JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH J.A.

MUSAH AND ANOTHER v. TALI

Areas of Law

JUDGEMENT