NANA BRAFO DADAZIE II & ORS v. JOHN KING ARTHUR & ORS
2017
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- Yaw Appau
- Anin Yeboa
- P. Baffoe-Bonnie
- N. S. Gbadegbe
- G. Pwaman
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
2017
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Yaw Appau JSC, decided a second appeal by fourteen defendants challenging concurrent decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal in a land dispute involving the Chief of Upper Shama Junction, Nana Brafo Dadzie II. The Respondent sought damages for trespass and recovery of possession over "Upper Shama Junction lands" described by boundary owners, relying on prior litigation started in 1993 that concerned the Old Shama Junction Cemetery. The Circuit Court had dismissed the earlier trespass claim but erroneously declared ownership of undefined Upper Shama Junction lands and granted an injunction, later affirmed by the Court of Appeal. In the present case, many defendants denied knowledge of any such lands and were not parties to the earlier suit. Applying its Koglex/Achoro standard, and res judicata principles, the Supreme Court held that the earlier judgments could not operate as res judicata because the subject-matter differed and the land’s boundaries were never identified. It found the lower courts’ reliance on res judicata perverse, allowed the appeal, and set aside the lower judgments.
JUDGMENT
YAW APPAU, JSC.
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated the 10th day of December, 2014. The Appellants, who are fourteen (14) in number, were the Defendants in the trial High Court. They were sued by the Respondent who was the Plaintiff and Chief of Upper Shama Junction. His claim against all the Defendants/Appellants was for two reliefs only, i.e.:
(i) General Damages for trespass to portions of the Upper Shama Junction lands bounded on all sides by the lands of Ituma, Kwasi Ansah of Agona family of Kumase-Shama, Bonsaba lands and Konfueku lands;
(ii) Recovery of possession of lands unlawfully occupied by the defendants.
The Defendants/Appellants lost in the trial High Court and lost the second time in the Court of Appeal when they appealed against the judgment of the trial High Court. This is therefore their second appeal. They would simply be referred to as Appellants in this appeal whilst the Plaintiff/Respondent would maintain the description ‘Respondent’ hereinafter.
This Court has a plethora of authorities or decisions on what is expected of it as a final appellate court when it is confronted with a second appeal challenging the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeal. With reference to its previous decision in ACHORO v AKANFELA [1996-97] SCGLR 209, this Court in KOGLEX LTD (No. 2) v FIELD [2000] SCGLR 175, held under its holding at page 176 that: “Where the first appellate court had confirmed the findings of the trial court, the second appellate court would not interfere with the concurrent findings unless it was established with absolute clearness that some blunder or error, resulting in a miscarriage of justice, was apparent in the way in which the lower court had dealt with the facts”.
The Court, per Acquah, JSC (as he then was), gave four (4) instances where such concurrent findings may be interfered with; reference page 177 of the Koglex Ltd (No.2) case cited (supra). These are:
i. where the findings of the trial court are clearly unsupported by evidence on record or where the reasons in support of the findings are unsatisfactory;
ii. where a principle of evidence has been improperly applied;
iii. where the findings are based on a wrong proposition of law; and
iv. where the finding is inconsistent with crucial documentary evidence on record.
We therefore approach this appeal, having in mind the parameters we have set for ourselves in the determination of appeals of such natu