ODIKRO KOFI NYARKO v. CHIEF KOJO ABOAGYE SUBSTITUTED BY CHIEF KOJO ABOAGYE ABABIO
1951
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- WINDSOR-AUBREY, J
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
1951
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a land dispute where the Plaintiff seeks a declaration of title to a piece of land. The defendant claimed that he had pledged the land to the Plaintiff as security for a loan of 13 shillings, but failed to provide convincing evidence or explanations. The court considered various factors including the credibility of witnesses, the long-term undisturbed occupation of the land by the Plaintiff, and the implausibility of the defendant's account. Ultimately, the court found in favor of the Plaintiff, granting a declaration of title and rejecting the defendant's claim of a pledge. The court also awarded costs against the defendant, with the co-defendant (Chief Kwesi Boadu, who had withdrawn from the case) ordered to pay his own costs.
Judgment:
The Plaintiff claims a declaration of title to all that piece of land edged with purple on Exhibit 1. In a former suit between the defendant and Chief Kwesi Boadu a small portion of the land in dispute in this action (which I have marked with red ink lines on Exhibit 1) was awarded to Kwesi Boadu and I accordingly ordered that he should be joined as a co-defendant. Kwesi Boadu admits that he has no claim to that area and has withdrawn from the action.
The defendant alleges that many years ago he pledged the whole of the land to the Plaintiff as security for a loan of 13 shillings. He asserts that from time to time he and his ancestors have attempted to repay the loan but have always been frustrated.
The western boundary of the land claimed is the Barguru stream and at one time I was disposed to consider this was a natural boundary and that it was unlikely that an artificial boundary on the eastern side at Kotokuom Nkwanta a few hundred yards distant, should have been selected many years ago when land was of negligible value. After hearing the whole evidence I have come to the conclusion that Kotokuom Nkwanta has been for a very long time a wellknown junction and is just as likely to be a natural boundary as the Barguru
stream. There is therefore no force in this point in favour of the defendant. I now have to consider whether the defendant pledged the land to the plaintiff. I would remark at the outset that the plaintiff was a far better witness than the defendant. The plaintiff was restrained and collected while the defendant was quick-tempered and pugnacious and gave an impression of irresponsibility and vindictiveness. Too much value should not however be placed on demeanour alone and it is necessary to weigh up the evidence for and against both parties.
I am satisfied that some of the defendant's subjects residing on the land have been paying tribute to the plaintiff. This is not, however, of itself of much import as if the land was pledged they would during che period of the pledge pay tribute to the plaintiff. In view, however, of the small sum involved, it is somewhat surprising that these tenants have not actively expressed discontent at paying tribute which would have ceased as soon as the defendant repaid the 13 shillings. The defendant's witnesses give unsatisfactury accounts for the reason for the pledge and the explanation offered by the defendant and his witnesses concerning attempts at re-payment were must unconvincing. It is