NII KPOBI TETTEY TSURU III & ORS v. AGRIC CATTLE & ORS

J U D G M E N T

MARFUL-SAU, JSC: -

The action that has culminated into this appeal before us was originally initiated with a writ filed on 16th May 2008. The writ was filed by the La Traditional Council as the Plaintiff suing per its lawful Attorney Joseph Annang Mensah. The original defendants endorsed on the writ were named as Japan Motors, Agric Cattle, Katamanso (Nii Otoo Laryea) and Santeo (Atta Quarshie). On the 21st January 2009, an amended writ was filed replacing the original Plaintiff, La Traditional Council with La Divisional Council, as the new Plaintiff. The record of appeal showed that the writ and pleadings in the case suffered several amendments till it was further amended by making Nii Tetteh Kpobi Tsuru III, the Plaintiff for and on behalf of the La Stool.

Now, as a result of the several amendments, discontinuance and joinders in the suit, at the end of the trial the parties in the suit were as follows:-

‘’1. Nii Kpobi Tetteh Tsuru III (Deceased)- Subtituted by Nii Obodai Odai IV, La Mankralo.

2. SFA Ltd.

3. Fodas Estates Ltd.

Vrs.

1.Agric Cattle

2. Santeo Mantse (Atta Quarshie)

3. Katamanso Mantse (Nii Otoo Laryea)

4. Nii Odaifio Welentsi III (Nungua Mantse)

5. Lakeside Estate Ltd.’’

The trial High Court after an elaborate trial in its judgment declared title to a parcel of land measuring 2,911.53 acres for the 1st and 5th defendants and also declared title in the 1st Plaintiff, La Stool for the remaining disputed land measuring 46,509 acres. The 1st and 5th defendants’ lodged an appeal against the decision of the trial High Court in the Court of Appeal, which in a judgment dated 28th March 2018 reversed the decision of the trial High Court. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal separately appealed to this Court urging us to set aside the said decision. Several grounds of appeal were filed by the three appellants. For purposes of easy reference the parties in this appeal will retain their respective descriptions at the trial.

In their respective statements of case filed in this appeal, Counsel for the 1st Plaintiff, who is the 1st Appellant and Counsel for the 1st and 5th defendants, who are Respondents have both raised preliminary points of law that we need to address, since the issues raised are very fundamental. Counsel for the 1st and 5th defendants has argued in his Statement of Case that the Plaintiff who issued the original writ, La Traditional Council, had no leg