[1984]DLCA909 • December 11, 1984 • Court of Appeal
DZOTEPE vs. HAHORMENE III AND OTHERS
This was an application for stay of execution pending appeal arising out of a land dispute with roots in a 1953 Anloga Native Court B judgment. The applicant’s predecessor-in-title, Agbemabiese, had in 1953 obtained judgment against persons sued for themselves and on behalf of the Tovie tribe of Tegbi for title to land and an injunction. The central issue in the 1953 case was whether Agbemabiese redeemed or bought the land in his personal capacity or on behalf of the Tovie tribe using tribal funds. The native court found that he bought in his own right. In later proceedings, the High Court set aside that 1953 judgment on the ground of fraud, the alleged fraud being that a plan tendered by Agbemabiese and said to have been copied from a 1906 judgment had been altered. The applicant contended on appeal that the alleged alteration related only to a collateral matter because the identity of the land had never been in issue, and further argued that the respondents’ subsequent writ of possession was invalid since the High Court had granted only the declaratory relief endorsed on the writ and had not entered judgment for possession. [Portions relied on: “The applicant’s predecessor-in-title, one Agbemabiese, obtained judgment… in the Anloga Native Court B on 14 May 1953”; “What appears to be the question in controversy was whether the applicant’s predecessor… did so in his own right or did so on behalf of the Tovie tribe”; “The judge of the High Court set aside that judgment on the ground of fraud”; “The basis of the allegation of fraud… is that the plan produced… was altered.”]
read moreJUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J. Apaloo C.J. delivered the ruling of the court. The applicant’s predecessor-in-title, one Agbemabiese, obtained judgment against one Dzisam and four other persons in the Anloga Native Court B on 14 May 1953. The defendants were sued “for themselves and on behalf of the Tovie tribe of Tegbi.” The claim then was for title to a piece of land which was described by reference to adjoining land said to be bounded by natural features or named persons. The applicant’s predecessor also obtained an injunction “restraining the then defendants, their servants or agents from meddling with the land and the trees thereon.” What appears to be the question in controversy was whether the applicant’s predecessor who ex concessis bought or redeemed the land from Chief Tamakloe, did so in his own right or did so on behalf of the Tovie tribe. The applicant’s predecessor’s position was that he did so in his own right and vis-à-vis the tribe, was the legal ...