TSRIFO vs. DUA VIII

(His lordship stated the history of the case, and proceeded;—) In their judgment the native trial-Court made the following findings of fact: “The witnesses in this case supported plaintiff in their evidence in respect of the case heard and determined in respect of the land in dispute . Except defence witness Kwami, all of them mentioned the “Have” stream as the recognised boundary mark between both parties land which came in conjunction with the arbitration.” In other words, the native trial-Court found the plaintiff’s claim (that the Have stream is the boundary between his land and that of the defendant) confirmed by all his witnesses, and by all but one of the witnesses for the defendant. Where the evidence of one party on an issue in a suit is corroborated by witnesses of his opponent, whilst that of his opponent on the same issue stands uncorroborated even by his own witnesses, a Court ought not to accept the uncorroborated version in preference to the corroborat...