NATHANIEL BOSOMPRAH FIANKO & ANOTHER v. PHILIP DODOO DJAN & OTHERS

ATUGUBA, J.S.C.

THE FACTS

In this case the Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants’ father, Nathaniel Fianko Akotuah, on the face of a registered title deed, exhibit ‘B’ was the owner of the property on which stands H/No. B 565/6, Abossey Okai, Accra, which is also said to belong to their father. Other documents tending to support this claim include a building permit, receipts for payment of property rates etc. Accordingly they sued the Defendant/Respondents/Respondents in a District Court, Accra for: “an Order of Ejectment from House No. B565/6 and an order of payment of rend arrears from January, 1992”. The co-respondent was joint to action upon his application since he contended that he was the real owner of the property in question.

The courts below, from the District Court, Court 6, 28th February Road, Accra through the High Court Accra, presided over by Her Ladyship Mrs. G. Kusi-Appouh J, to the Court of Appeal, upheld the respondents’ case against the appellants. They all held that notwithstanding these said documents the co-respondent is the true or beneficial owner of the property in dispute. Against these triple concurrent findings of fact the appellants have battled this case up to this ultimate court.

THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL

The grounds of appeal are as follows:

“A) The learned judges, with respect, clearly erred in the face of crucial documentary evidence and in its dealing with the established facts in holding that the Co-Defendant/Respondent/Respondent (“the Respondent”) herein is the owner of the property in dispute notwithstanding the clear, overwhelming and unequivocal documentary and oral evidence confirming the Appellant’s late father’s ownership of the property in dispute and the error has occasioned the Appellant a substantial miscarriage of justice.

B) The learned judges erred in law in failing to appreciate the legal consequences of the documents tendered by the appellant as evidence of his late father’s ownership of the property, subject matter of the dispute, which error has occasioned the Appellant a substantial miscarriage of justice.

i) The learned judges, with respect, misappreciated or misapplied the principles of evidence relating, inter alia, to conclusive presumptions, estoppel by conduct and proof by the Appellant of his case by a preponderance of the probabilities, to the facts admitted or established by the Court of Appeal particularly in terms of the Respondent’s unequivocal conduct in executing, as a witness for the Ap