NANA OWUSU SEKYERE v. NANA OFORI ATTA & OTHERS
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- FRANCIS KORBIEH, J.A.
- IRENE DANQUAH, J.A
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Ghana Court of Appeal decision, authored by Justice Mariama Owusu, concerns a dispute over Anyinasa land near Boben, where the plaintiff sought a declaration of title, damages for trespass, and an injunction. The plaintiff traced title through traditional acquisition and long possession via his late father, Oheneba Nana Owusu Sekyere, who had cultivated the area for decades and gifted it to his children. The 1st defendant purported to sell the land to the 2nd defendant, who planted oranges, while the defence maintained that the land had been pledged by Totwi for 50 years. Applying the test of traditional history against recent acts and the evidential burden for a pledge, the Court concluded the appellant proved title on the preponderance of probabilities. It set aside the High Court’s dismissal and granted declaration, GH1,000 damages, and a perpetual injunction.
Mariama Owusu, J.A.:
On 19-10-2010, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed as not proved, by the High Court, Ashanti-Mampong. Cost of GH¢500.00 was awarded in favour of the defendant.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the plaintiff filed the instant appeal.
The Grounds of Appeal are:
1. The court failed to observe the legal requirements needed for a person seeking for a declaration of title and therefore erred in law in his conclusions.
2. The court failed to consider the evidence of the gift to the plaintiff/appellant and his siblings and their long possession when there is sufficient evidence in favour of plaintiff/appellant not challenged by the defendants/respondents.
3. The court erred in law by saying and relying on the fact that lands in Boben do not belong to Mamponghene but to Boben Dikro thereby arriving at a wrong conclusion in the case.
4. The court failed to make a finding of fact as to the identity of this Totwi in order to determine whether defendants/respondents have the right to alienate Totwi’s property and take advantage of any pledge if at all there is any.
5. The court failed to consider properly the fact that, defendants/respondents did not counterclaim and also the fact that 2nd defendant did not give evidence at the trial and judgment should have been entered for the plaintiff/appellant.
6. The court erred in law when considering all the discrepancies and conflicts in the evidence of the defendants/respondents and their witnesses it still preferred the case of the defendants/respondents which lacked credibility.
7. Additional grounds will be filed on receipt of the record of proceedings.
The relief sought from the Court of Appeal is for a reversal of the judgment of the High Court and judgment given in favour of the plaintiff/appellant.
Before dealing with the arguments canvassed in support and against this appeal, I will give a brief background of this case.
By his writ of summons, the plaintiff claims against the defendants jointly and severally a declaration of title for a piece or a parcel of land lying at a place commonly known and called ‘Anyinasa’ near Boben on Ashanti Mampong Stool Land bounded by the properties of Oppong Agyare, Akwasi Agyapong, Mampong Stool land and a Tractor Road which land was gifted to the plaintiff’s immediate family by their late father and which the 1st defendant has wrongfully sold to the 2nd defendant and which the 2nd defendant has wrongfully gone unto the land an