JUDGEMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.A.
Following the judgment one Madam Ali Baba had obtained against the defendant herein he caused the defendant's house at Aboabo, Kumasi, to be attached under a writ of fi:fa for the recovery of the judgment debt. The house was allegedly sold at a public auction to the plaintiff as the highest bidder. It was the case for the plaintiff that after he had been issued with the certificate of purchase some "connections" of the defendant solicited on his behalf to allow the defendant to stay in the house as the plaintiff’s tenant. The agreed rent was ¢25 a month. The defendant stayed in the house and paid the rent of ¢25 until the end of July 1973 after which he refused to pay rent any longer. Wherefore the plaintiff sued not only because the defendant denied owing any arrears of rent but also because he claimed title to the house. The plaintiff’s writ was indorsed for rent arrears of ¢330, ejectment and possession and mesne profits.
The defendant took a simple but bold stand. He denied that his house was ever sold to the plaintiff at a public auction. He also denied that he ever became a tenant to the plaintiff. So far as he was concerned he contended that he had always enjoyed quiet and peaceful possession of his house (plot 12, Block 10, formerly plot 14, Block 11, Aboabo No 1, Kumasi) with his wife and children to the exclusion of the plaintiff. By his amended statement of claim the plaintiff described the house as plot 10, Block 12 (but formerly known as plot 14, Block 11). The trial circuit judge found for the plaintiff and gave him judgment, in effect, as per the indorsements on his writ. The judge also found that the defendant attempted to deceive the court by misdescribing his house which was sold as plot 12, block 10.
Aggrieved by the judgment the defendant has appealed to this court, first, on the handy ground that the judgment was against the weight of evidence and, secondly, on the ground of error in law on the part of the trial circuit judge in relying on a document which is void for non-registration under the Land Registry Act, 1962 (Act 122). A further ground was articulated in an additional ground of appeal as follows:
"That the trial judge erred in holding that the plaintiff acquired a valid title to the land in issue via a purchase of the same in the face of patent evidence on record to the effect that the sale was conducted privately thus rendering the whole transaction unlawful and consequently null and void."
