PRACTICE NOTE: BONAPARTE vs. WALAKATAKA II

Apaloo J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. [His lordship reviewed the evidence in the case after the Court of Appeal had inspected the land, the subject-matter of the action for trespass and continued:] We think therefore that we ought to differ from the conclusion of the learned trial judge. But before doing so, we have given consideration to the caveat issued in such cases as Keteku v. Dzogbenuku (1956) 1 W.A.L.R. 134 and Dza v. Komla (1956) 1 W.A.L.R. 145; and in particular, Boakye v. Baabu (1956) 2 W.A.L R. 183 where the West African Court of Appeal warned against allowing the impressions, gained on a visit to the locus in quo, to replace the conclusions properly drawn from the evidence and the demeanour of the witnesses who gave it. But on the special facts of this case, we cannot accept that the demeanour of the interested witnesses, who testified in this case, can be a certain guide to the truth. In the conflict of evidence which ensued between the rival parties, the on...