TETTEH AYAA IDDRISU v. WINFRED OTUAFRO ARYEH & ANOR

BROBBEY, JSC:

In its Judgment dated 28th February, 2008, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the Defendant/Appellant/Appellants (hereafter referred to as Appellant) lodged against the Judgment of the High Court presided over by Victor Ofoe J. (as he then was).

The Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent (hereafter referred to as the Respondents) claimed the following reliefs in the High Court:

1. An interpretation of the contents of the agreement reached between the parties on 29th September 1993;

2. An order to enforce the terms of the agreement;

3. Interest at the prevailing bank rate on the amount to be paid since 30th September 1993.

The Appellant counter-claimed for:

1. A declaration that the Plaintiff had no capacity to institute the present action;

2. A declaration that to the extent that the grant evidenced by document No. 506/84 affects the Defendants’ land it is void and of no effect;

3. A declaration that the agreement dated 29th September is void for uncertainty or in the alternative a declaration that no payment is due thereon from the Defendants.

At the close of pleadings the following issues were set down for trial on the 13th of March 2001:

1. Whether or not plaintiff is the head of the Ayaa Kwabla family and as such can sue in respect of the land described in paragraph one of the statement of claim;

2. Whether or not the Defendant signed an agreement with Plaintiff to pay him monies for the use of his land;

3. Whether or not the Defendants have paid the said money to the Plaintiff apart from the ¢5,000,000.00 they paid as deposit;

4. Whether Defendants were put under duress to sign the agreement of 29th September 1993 and if so what was the nature of the duress;

5. Any other issue arising out of the pleadings.

At the trial the Respondent testified and did not call any witness. The 2nd Appellant also testified for the defence without calling any witness. The trial court entered Judgment for the Respondent on the agreement to the effect that the Appellants had agreed to pay rent of ¢2000 per acre for the Respondents’ 200 acres of land and also pay compensation for any more residential plots encroached upon by the Respondents. To this end, the trial Court ordered a survey to be conducted to ascertain the number of residential plots encroached upon.

The Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:

“1. The Judgment is against the weight of evidence;

2. The learned trial Judge erred in faili