ZEINABU MOHAMMED & ANOTHER v. ADISA BOYA
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- E. K. Ayebi (Presiding), JA
- Gertrude Torkornoo, (Mrs.), JA
- Angelina M. Domakyaareh (Mrs.), JA
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff sued the defendants claiming title and seeking possession of a plot of land, while the defendants counterclaimed for an injunction and costs. After the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants appealed, arguing the decision was against the weight of evidence. The appellate court re-evaluated the evidence and established that the defendants had a valid earlier grant to the disputed land dating back to 1970, thus nullifying the plaintiff’s subsequent 1997 grant and ordering the cancellation of the plaintiff's lease.
AYEBI, JA
1. On 15th August 2011, the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) sued the defendants/appellants(referred to as defendants simply in this judgment) for: (a) Declaration of title to and recovery of possession of all that plot No. 2 Block “U”, Ayigya-Kumasi.
b) An order of perpetual injunction and general damages for trespass.
c) Any appropriate reliefs in the circumstance of this case.
2. Upon the service on the defendants the writ of summons with statement of claim, they in their statement of defence denied the claim of the plaintiff and counter-claimed simply for: (a) An order for perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff, her agents and assigns from having anything to do with the land in dispute.
b) Costs.
3. Based on the pleadings, the issues set out and set down for trial by the trial judge are: (i) Whether or not the plaintiff acquired the disputed plot from the Hia-Topre Stool.
ii) Whether or not the plaintiff has any valid lease on the disputed plot.
iii) Whether or not the 1st defendant was convicted of obstruction on the disputed plot.
iv) Whether or not the plot in dispute belongs to the defendants and therefore are entitled to their counter- claim.
v) Any other issues arising from the pleadings.
4. At the trial, the plaintiff tendered the allocation note issued her by the Hia-Topre Stool and endorsed by the Asantehene as Exhibit A, the lease executed in her favour as Exhibit F and the proceedings in the criminal trial in the District Court as Exhibit B. Based on these pieces of documentary evidence, the trial judge decided issues (a), (b) and (c) in favour of the plaintiff without any difficulty.
As regards issue (d) he held that the defendants were unable to prove their counter-claim.
Consequently, the trial judge dismissed the counter-claim of defendants and entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment, defendants have appealed to this court to set aside and or reverse the judgment in their favour on the sole ground that the judgment is against the weight of evidence.
Explaining the import of this ground of appeal in Tuakwa vrs Bosom [2001/02] 2 GLR 61, Supreme Court per Sophia Akuffo JSC stated at page 65 that: “… an appeal is by way of re-hearing, particularly where the appellant alleges in his notice of appeal that the decision of the trial court is against the weight of evidence.
In such a case, although it is not the function of the appellate cour