SUMMEY v. YOHUNO AND OTHERS
1962
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- VAN LARE
- SARKODEE-ADOO
- CRABBE JJ.S.C
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Tort Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
1962
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court from Ollennu J.’s Land Division judgment reversing the Manya Krobo Court “A” Division in a dispute over a rope of land at Akatawiah. The plaintiff, granddaughter of Maku, sought damages and an injunction after first and second defendants, acting under third defendant’s authority, entered and damaged her crops on land historically allotted to Maku by her father, Tettey Djokobre. Earlier tribunal judgments (Exhibits A and B) confirmed Maku’s title. The High Court invalidated Exhibit C (a purported customary will) yet relied alternatively on lawful possession with family consent. Crabbe J.S.C. and van Lare J.S.C. issued concurring opinions dismissing the appeal, emphasizing that defendants were estopped from re‑litigating title and lacked any better right to possession; Sarkodee‑Adoo J.S.C. agreed. The Supreme Court affirmed for different reasons, rooted in possession and estoppel rather than proof of title by gift inter vivos.
JUDGMENT OF CRABBE J.S.C.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of Ollennu, J., sitting in the Land Division of the High Court of Justice dated the 29th March, 1960, which allowed an appeal for the decision of the Manya Krobo Court “A” Division, dated the 3rd June, 1959.
The dispute between the parties concerns a piece of land situate at a place called Akatawiah. The plaintiff by her writ of summons claimed damages for trespass, and an injunction restraining the first and second defendant, their servants or agents from committing further acts of trespass on the land at Akatawiah. On the application of third defendant he was joined to the suit by an order of the trial native court, dated the 3th April, 1959.
The plaintiff claimed title through her grandmother, one Maku, deceased; the defence on the other hand appears to be that the land, the subject-matter of the dispute, is one rope out of three ropes of land which was purchased by one Tettey Djokobre, the father of both Maku and Tettey Yohuno, and which the said Djokobre gave to his son Tettey Yohuno as a gift. The defendants contended further that Maku occupied that land with the leave and licence of her brother the said Tettey Yohuno.
It would appear therefore on a cursory examination of the evidence for the defendant that the title of the plaintiff was put in issue at the trial even though the claim was one of trespass. In Kponuglo & Ors. v. Kodadja1 a judgment delivered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council it was said:
“The respondent’s claim being one of damages for trespass, and for an injunction against further trespass, it follows that he has put his title in issue. His claim postulates, in their Lordships’ opinion, that he is either the owner of Bunya land, or has had, prior to the trespass complained of, exclusive possession of it. The principal question to be decided in the appeal would accordingly seem to be — Has the respondent discharged the onus which rests [p.162] upon him of demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that the title to the disputed land is in him? The appellants say — Nay; the respondents say —Aye."
The trial native court in a judgment of only three paragraphs, and without evaluating the documentary and oral evidence, held as follows: "Upon hearing evidence adduced on record with the plaintiff's exhibits and witnesses, the plaintiff had failed to establish her title of ownership over the land". It therefore entered judgment for defendant but made