SASU AND ANOTHER vs. AMUA-SEKYI AND ANOTHER

The parties were adjoining or contiguous landowners at South Odorkor in Accra, both tracing title to the Akumajay Stool or its grantees under written grants with site plans. The respondents had sued the applicant in the High Court for trespass, damages and recovery of possession, the real dispute being the identity and boundaries of the respective parcels. A court-appointed surveyor prepared a composite plan and testified. Relying substantially on that neutral evidence, the trial judge found that no trespass had been committed and dismissed the action. On appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, the Court of Appeal, acting under rule 26 of L.I. 218, called for fresh evidence from the surveyor and a representative of the Chief Lands Officer because it doubted the accuracy of the plan. That further evidence, including a corrected plan, was taken in the absence of the successful party at trial. The appeal was then allowed and the High Court judgment reversed. The applicant thereafter applied under rule 25(1) of L.I. 218 to set aside the ex parte appellate judgment and for a rehearing. Portion of judgment: “The parties own land near or contiguous to each other at South Odorkor… The plaintiffs… brought a suit against him in the High Court for damages and for possession… the only real issue between them was the identity of their land… The learned trial judge… felt satisfied that no trespass had been committed. He therefore dismissed the action… the court… ordered the surveyor… to testify before it… [and] the Chief Lands Officer be summoned… All this time the successful party at the trial court… was absent and the proceedings were undoubtedly ex parte.”