OFFEI OHENE ASA v. OBAAHEMAA BAFFOUR OPONWAAH II
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- DENNIS D. ADJEI (J.A.) - PRESIDING
- LOVELACE-JOHNSON (J.A.)
- CECILIA SOWAH (J.A
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an appeal against a High Court judgment that ruled in favor of the Plaintiff in a land dispute. The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the Plaintiff had validly acquired the land through a customary grant in 1986. The court found that the allocation note (Exhibit 'A') was admissible evidence of the transaction, despite lacking a jurat. It also ruled that the grantor, Nana Kwaku Akowuah, had the capacity to alienate the land at the time due to the stay of execution effect of his appeal against his destoolment. The court nullified a subsequent lease (Exhibit 'B') executed in 1995, as by then Nana Kwaku Akowuah had been destooled and lacked authority. The judgment clarified several legal principles regarding customary land transactions, the effect of appeals in chieftaincy matters, and the validity of documents executed by illiterates. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Plaintiff's right to the disputed land.
DENNIS ADJEI:
The High Court Koforidua on 21st December, 2011 gave judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent (who would be referred to in this appeal as the Plaintiff) against the Defendant/Appellant (hereafter called the Defendant) for:
“a. A declaration of title to a piece of land at Akwamu Abuakwa acquired from the late Nana Kwaku Akowuah II, Kontihene of Akamu Traditional Area on 12th and 16th March and May which the Defendant entered upon and destroyed his fruit crops, water pipe and concrete structure.
b. General damages (GH¢3,000.00) for the destruction of the Plaintiff’s said items.
c. Perpetual injunction against the Defendant and all person claiming through or by her from interference with the land”.
The facts of the case were that the Plaintiff acquired the plot,the subject matter of the appeal from the late Nana Kwaku Akowuah the then Krontihene of Akwamu Abuakwa and his elders. The Defendant’s position was that at the time the Krontihene, Nana Kwaku Akowuah alienated the plot to the Plaintiff, he had then been destooled as a Chief and therefore lacked capacity to alienate it.
The Defendant dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial High Court appealed against same to this Court. The grounds of appeal filed by the Defendant are as follows:
“a. that the judgment is against the weight of evidence on record.
b. that the learned trial Judge erred in law by relying in exhibit A, the so called receipt as sufficient to pass interest/title in the disputed land to the Plaintiff/Respondent.
c. The judgment is extremely perverse.
d. That the learned trial Judge’s interpretation of the concept of stay of execution in Chieftaincy cases which he applied to the instant case is very wrong.
e. That the judgment is subversive of the planning regulating in the Asuogyaman District”.
I would first comment on grounds ( c ) and (e) of the appeal as they are not in conformity with how appeal should be formulated. It is vague to state that a judgment is extremely perverse or it is subversive of the planning regulating in the Asuogyaman District. The law is that a ground of appeal alleging error in law or misdirection or to say a judgment is perverse is not proper unless particulars of the error or misdirection or the reasons why a judgment is perverse are provided. Rule 8 sub rule (4) of C.I. 19 provides that where a person in his/her ground of appeal alleges misdirection or error in law, particulars of the error or the misdirection shall be provided.