October 26, 2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal (per Georgina Mensah-Datsa, JA) dismissed the 1st Defendants appeal from the High Court, Cape Coast, in a land dispute between the Kona family of Kwahinkrom and the Abrutu family of Kissi involving MTNs telecommunications mast and a house built by Efua Hannah at Kissi. The High Court had declared title in the Kona family, ordered recovery and injunction, directed MTN (Scancom Ghana Ltd) and Efua Hannah to atone tenancy to the Kona family, and awarded nominal damages and costs. On appeal, grounds alleging error in the trial courts treatment of site vs composite plan, error of law regarding laches and acquiescence while asserting allodial title, and weight-of-evidence were rejected. The appellate court emphasized rehearing standards and the appellants burden, found no acquiescence given the Kona familys resistance, agreed with the trial courts reasoning, and refused to vary costs due to non-compliance with Rule 15 of C.I. 19.
GEORGINA MENSAH-DATSA (MRS.), J.A.
This is an appeal by the 1st Defendant/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as Appellant) against the judgment of the High Court, Cape Coast dated 18th December, 2020 in favour of the 2nd Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as Respondent).
The grounds of appeal are as follows:
a. The learned trial Judge erred when he held that the Defendants failed to explain the disparity between the area covered by the Defendants’ site plan and the area on the ground as contained in the composite plan when the Defendants’ survey instructions indicated that their site plan produced was in respect of portions of their entire family land.
b. The learned trial Judge respectfully committed grave error in law.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial Judge was wrong when he submitted that since the Defendants had made a claim for a declaration that their family is the allodial title owners to the disputed land, they could not also rely on the defence of laches and acquiescence to the Plaintiffs’ claim of ownership.
c. The judgment is against the weight of the evidence.
Additional grounds of appeal shall be filed upon receipt of the record of appeal.
No additional ground of appeal was filed.
The relief sought is an order setting aside the judgment of the trial High Court and judgment to be entered in favour of the Appellants.
The Plaintiffs/ Respondent instituted this action on the 6th September, 2016 against the Defendants/Appellant for the following reliefs:
1. Declaration of title to the tract of land situate, located and being at Kissi and on which is located the 2nd Defendant’s telecommunication mast as being the bona fide property of the Kona family of Kwahinkrom as well as where the 3rd Defendant had put up her building.
2. An order awarding general damages against the Defendants for trespassing onto the said land.
3. An order for the recovery of the said land from the Defendants.
4. An order compelling the 2nd Defendant to remove its telecommunication mast from the land.
5. An order of perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendants, their agents, assigns, workmen or any person or persons lawfully claiming through them from having anything to do with the disputed land.
The Defendants/Appellant filed an amended counter-claim against the Plaintiffs/ Respondent as follows:
a) A declaration that the tract of land situate, lying and being at Kissi on which is situated telecommunications mast of Scancom Gh