NATHANIEL ADJEIDU ARMAH v. MAVIS ADU & ORS
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ACKAH-YENSU J.A. (PRESIDING)
- GAISIE J.A.
- BAFFOUR J.A.
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this Ghana Court of Appeal decision authored by Justice Eric K. Baffour, the court addressed whether the Appellant’s parcel in Dzorwulu was the same land claimed by the Respondents through an Osu Stool grant to their mother, Rebecca Mosoperh, and her siblings. The Appellant traced title through Theophilus Quarcoo Armar and Abraham Osei Hammond and relied on a registered land certificate. The High Court had dismissed the Appellant’s claims, accepted a composite plan by the court’s expert (CW1), and rejected the Appellant’s expert (PW1), holding the parcels overlapped. On appeal, the court found the Respondents’ 2003 site plan (1.08 acres) materially differed from their original 1960 indenture plan (0.91 acres at Mamobi Dzorwulu) and that CW1’s analysis improperly relied on the later plan. Clarifying that parties may call qualified experts under the Evidence Act and Order 26 of C.I. 47, the court deemed PW1’s report persuasive, concluded the lands were distinct, affirmed the Appellant’s indefeasible registered title, reversed the trial judgment, dismissed the 3rd Respondent’s counterclaim, and awarded GH¢10,000 costs.
Baffour J.A:
Introduction
By the nature of the grounds of appeal filed and the written submission of the Plaintiff/Appellant, the whole appeal seems to revolve around a narrow scope or compass of whether the parties were disputing over the same piece of land. If it is the same piece of land, then the findings of the trial court would have to be affirmed. On the contrary, if the land the Plaintiff/Appellant claimed in the court below is different from the land of the Defendant/Appellants, then the judgment under attack would have to be set aside. Having lost the action at the trial High Court by the denial of the reliefs he sought at the court below, the Plaintiff/Appellant seeks a reversal of the decision of the trial court by this appeal. Against the background that an appellate court is entitled to assume the findings of a trial court to be correct unless that presumption has convincingly been demonstrated to be wrong by the appellant, a burden is cast on the Plaintiff/Appellant to displace that presumption and show why we ought to overturn the judgment of the learned trial judge. The grounds of appeal together with the evidence on record as analyzed infra would show either the rightness of the decision appealed against or vindicate the position that the Plaintiff/Appellant has taken in this appeal. Plaintiff/Appellant would simply be referred to as Appellant whiles the Defendant/Respondent as Respondents, hereinafter in this judgment.
Background
Appellant by his amended writ sought three reliefs being in the nature of general damages for trespass of a land he described as measuring 0.151 acre, that is parcel No 012 Bock 9 section 2, Dzorwulu, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction. Appellant described himself as the owner of the land whose dimensions he described in the schedule to the statement of claim, having acquired same from his uncle, Theophilus Quarcoo Armar, who also acquired it from Abraham Osei Hammond in 1969 with the interest being freehold in nature. That he became owner by virtue of a transfer of the interest of his uncle to him on the 2nd of May, 1999 and that he caused same to be registered in December, 1999 for which he was duly issued with a land certificate. Further ,that the 1st Respondent purporting to act on the instructions of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents has been laying claim to the same piece of land and has even constructed wooden structure on the land.
2nd and 3rd Respondents denied the claims of Appellant and 3r