NANA KOFI FRIMPONG v. JANET NANA KONADU
June 25, 2020
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ANGELINA DOMAKYAAREH (MRS.) JA. (PRESIDING)
- A. B. POKU-ACHEAMPONG, JA.
- SAMUEL K.A. ASIEDU, JA
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Tort Law
- Alternative dispute resolution
JUDGMENT
ASIEDU, JA.
My Lords, on the 17th October 2016, the Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter called the Respondent) issued a writ of summons at the High Court, Kumasi, against the Defendant/Appellant (hereinafter called the Appellant) and one Okyeame Owusu for:
a. Declaration of title to and an order for recovery of possession of 7 building plots (unnumbered) but more particularly described in a site plan lying, being and situate at Dawu near Jamasi
b. Special damages in the sum of Ghȼ9,030.00 for wanton demolition of Plaintiff’s 4-bedroom house at lintel level, inclusive of inbuilt kitchen, toilet, bath, storeroom and hall.
c. General damages against Defendants jointly and severally.
d. Costs inclusive of solicitor’s costs.
e. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves, their servants, workmen, labourers or assigns from interfering with Plaintiff’s lawful enjoyment of her property.
After entering appearance, the Appellant and Okyeame Owusu filed a statement of defence in which they counterclaimed for:
i. An order of the court declaring that the land in dispute forms part of the Dawu Stool. (sic)
ii. An order of the court that the land in dispute has been earmarked for the Palace of Dawu.
iii. An order annulling or cancelling any sale of the land in dispute to the Plaintiff.
iv. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Plaintiff, her agents, assigns, workmen from in anyway interfering with the land in dispute
During proceedings, Okyeame Owusu passed away but was not substituted; hence, the matter was heard between the Respondent and the Appellant. After the trial, the learned High Court Judge in a judgment delivered on the 9th May 2019, dismissed the counterclaim and entered judgment in favour of the Respondent against the Appellant for all the reliefs indorsed on the writ of summons. Aggrieved by the judgment, the Appellant filed an appeal to this court on the grounds that:
1. The judgment was against the weight of evidence.
2. The Plaintiff failed to describe clearly the identity and limits of the land in dispute.
3. The damages and costs awarded against the Defendant were excessive and harsh.
4. The Plaintiff was estopped per rem judicatam from re-litigating on the subject land after same had been determined by Asantehemaa’s Arbitration Court.
5. The Plaintiff failed to proof (sic) her claim on the requisite standard of proof.
6. Additional grounds of appeal will be filed upon receipt of th