PENIANA AND OTHERS v. AFFRAM
1966
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- SARKODEE - ADOO C.J.
- MILLS-ODOI
- BRUCE-LYLE JJ.S.C
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
1966
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case concerns a land dispute where the plaintiff-respondent claimed ownership of land based on a purchase made by his late father 62 years ago. The defendants-appellants denied the sale and claimed the land belonged to their family. The trial judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, leading to an appeal by the defendants. The appeal raised issues such as the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence, the necessity of proving sales by customary law, and the admissibility of previous judgments. Ultimately, the appellate court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the plaintiff succeeded on the strength of his own case and that the previous judgments were correctly admitted as evidence. The appeal was dismissed.
Bruce-Lyle J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. This is all appeal from the judgment of Simpson J. sitting in the Land Court, Ho, and dated 4 June 1960. The plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) took an action against the defendants appellants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) in the Local Court B of Peki State for a declaration of title to an extensive area of land west of Tsito, £G50 damages for trespass, an order for recovery of possession and perpetual injunction. This cause was later transferred to the Land Court, Ho, where pleadings were ordered. The plaintiff in his statement of claim based his claim on an outright sale of the land described in the writ to his late father by one Bie (deceased). He averred that the land had been in his father's and in his own possession for about 62 years and that seven years prior to the issue of the writ, the defendants, members of the defendants' families and their licensees had trespassed on the land and had been making farms thereon.
The defendants in their statement of defence denied any sale of the land to the plaintiff's father and averred that the land in dispute was the property of the first and third defendants' family and had been their family's property from time immemorial and pleaded estoppel by res judicata and by conduct. They also pleaded possession from time immemorial. The defendants further counterclaimed for a declaration of title, £G100 damages for trespass and an order for perpetual injunction.
Evidence was led by both parties in support of their respective claims and the learned trial judge, in a well-considered judgment, dismissed the counterclaim of the defendants and sustained the claim of the plaintiff. Against this judgment the defendants have appealed to this court.
Not less than fourteen grounds of appeal were filed but nine of them were canvassed and they are:
“(1) The learned judge was wrong in law in overlooking the important principle of law that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case.
(2) The learned judge was wrong in accepting the evidence of the plaintiff's title because it was not proved.
(3) The plaintiff failed to prove the extent of the land alleged to have been sold to his predecessor in title by Bie and Bansah.
(4) There was no proof of the sale being valid according to native custom of the area alleged to have been purchased by the plaintiff's predecessor in title.
(5) The learned judge decided the case