NANA KODIAWUDE v. NANA ACKAKYI & NANA AZIA EIKU IV
November 28, 2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- Irene Charity Larbi (Mrs) J.A
- L. L. Mensah (J.A)
- Angelina M. Domakyaareh MRS. ( J.A)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
November 28, 2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Irene Charity Larbi (J.A.) delivered the Court of Appeal’s judgment allowing an interlocutory appeal from the High Court, Cape Coast’s refusal to join the Divisional Chief of Agona Ahanta as plaintiff in an ongoing land title suit against the Odikro of Bissikrom/Kodiawudie. Addressing a preliminary comment about the appeal’s heading, the court held mislabeling was not fatal because the body showed it challenged a ruling. The court enforced Rule 8(4) of C.I. 19 by striking out noncompliant grounds and treating an unargued ground as abandoned, then focused on joinder. Interpreting Order 4 Rule 5(3), it found no consent was needed for self-joinder. On res judicata, the court held the identity of the land was unproven due to the missing plan Exhibit ‘A’ from the 1977 case on the Amuyaw concession. Relying on Order 5 Rule (1) and Supreme Court authority, it set aside the High Court’s ruling and ordered joinder to avoid multiplicity.
JUDGMENT
Irene Charity Larbi (Mrs) J.A.
(1) This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court, Cape Coast dated 18th March, 2015.
(2) The brief facts of the case are that the Plaintiff (Substituted) filed a suit on 23/08/2011 against the Defendant as the Odikro of the village of Bissikrom also called Kodiawudie near Agona Ahanta in Western Region of Ghana. The Plaintiff in his Amended Statement of claim stated that he is one of fourteen (14) Odikro under the Agona Ahanta Divisional Stool of Ahanta. He stated further that his land covers an area approximately five (5) square miles which is bounded on the South by Anyamkroom Stool lands on the East by Assini Stool lands on the North by Nsuaem Stool lands and the West by the Morrison/Axim Road area.
(3) On 16th October, 2014 the Appellant filed a Motion on Notice for joinder as the Divisional Chief of Agona Ahanta on the ground that the disputed land is situate within his area. After hearing arguments from both counsel for the Appellant and Respondent, the High Court gave its ruling that as between the stool of Agona Ahanta and that of the Respondent Apimenyim there is res judicata and therefore the Appellant cannot lawfully join the suit.
(4) Dissatisfied with the said ruling, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal against the whole ruling/decision on the following grounds.
a) That the decision is not supported by the weight of the evidence adduced at the trial.
b) That the Trial Judge erred in law when she failed to consider that the disputed land is not identical with any land which was the subject of a previous litigation between the Appellant and the Defendant.
c) That the Trial Judge erred in law when she stated that as between the Appellant and the Defendant there is res-judicata.
d)That the Trial Judge erred by not adverting her attention to the issue of limitation of action that enures to the benefit of the Appellant assuming without admitting that the Defendant ever won a case against his stool about a century ago.
(5) Before we consider the appeal, we find it pertinent to address a comment which though not raised as a preliminary legal objection was made by counsel for the Respondent. The comment was that the Notice of Appeal which was filed by the Appellant did not slightly suggest that the present appeal is an interlocutory appeal and therefore misleading as it tends to give an impression that it is a regular appeal. He contended that there is a clear distinction between a regular