NANA YAW OWUSU & OTHERS v. HYDROFORM ESTATES LTD

OFOE, J.A:

The appellants lost their case before the trial High Court and have appealed to this court seeking a reversal of the judgment and in its place give judgment in their favour. In the trial court they sought for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant/respondent company from interfering with their quiet enjoyment and possession of the land in dispute. The defendant/respondent fought the case with a counterclaim which they won. Their counterclaim was for a declaration of title to the parcel of land of which the land in dispute forms a part, recovery of possession of all that part encroached upon by the plaintiffs, an order for demolition of all structures the plaintiffs have erected on this land, damages for trespass and costs.

We will refer to the appellants as the plaintiffs and the respondent as the defendant i.e. the description they bore at the trial High Court. What were the respective cases they put before the trial court? But before then what grievances did the plaintiffs have against the trial court’s judgment. They have formulated them into four grounds of appeal which I produce hereunder.

“1. The judgment is against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial

2. The learned trial judge erred in law when he treated the previous judgment upon which the plaintiff/appellants acquired their land as reliance on the pleas of estoppels or res judicata.

3. The learned trial judge erred when he held that the plaintiff/appellants did not take proper steps to inquire about the title of their vendor though there was evidence that their vendor showed them a valid subsisting judgment of the High Court.

4. The learned trial judge failed to appreciate that purchasers of land such as the plaintiffs/appellants who acquired their land based on valid subsisting judgments do not lose their title when the judgment is subsequently set aside”

The plaintiffs’ case simply put is that the first plaintiff bought four plots of land from Rana Freeman on the 27th May 2004. Before the purchase Rana gave him a copy of a judgment dated 5th December 2002 (Exhibit C) which he Rana had against the defendant and a copy of an indenture of his grantors, the Nungua Stool. It is the plaintiffs’ case that at the time of purchase Rana had title to this land by virtue of this judgment. After the purchase from Rana, 1st plaintiff sold portions of what he bought from Rana to the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs who also on the faith of this judgment paid for their respective p