AIKINS vs. KOMMENDA [1959]DLHC1983

Date	1959-12-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLHC1983

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.

ABABIO FOR PLAINTIFF.

BLAY FOR DEFENDANT.

[1959]DLHC1983
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">AIKINS <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">KOMMENDA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (LANDS DIVISION), CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1959] GLR 464<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
22ND DECEMBER, 1959.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

ABABIO FOR
PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.<o:p></o:p>(His
lordship stated the history of the matter, and continued:—)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
question which arose for determination in the trial-Court, and which now arises
in this appeal, was whether the plaintiff by the evidence which he adduced
before the trial-Court, was able to discharge the onus which undoubtedly lay on
him of affirmatively establishing the alleged purchase from the defendant’s
father. The defendant’s affidavit of opposition gave clear enough indication to
the plaintiff that the defendant was raising<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(a) the
question of the authenticity or genuineness of the Deed of Conveyance relied on
by him, with particular reference to the identity of the “Amadu” described as
vendor therein;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(b) the
question whether his brother in his lifetime ever, by any conduct on his part,
claimed title to the plot in dispute; and<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(c) the
question whether, in any event, he had not acquiesced in the defendant’s
adverse occupation for so long, and in such circumstances, as to preclude him
from now main-taining his present claim.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>An
examination of the material evidence put forward by the plaintiff towards
discharging the onus which rested on him, shows that it amounted to no more
than the mere production of an Indenture of Conveyance bearing date 23
September, 1929. This indenture purported to be made between Amadu of
Kotokuraba Road, Cape Coast as vendor, and Jacob Bedford Aikins (also of Cape
Coast) as purchaser, whereby, in consideration of the sum of £10.10/- paid by
the purchaser to the vendor, the latter granted and conveyed the plot in
dispute to the purchaser. The Deed of Conveyance was duly stamped shortly after
the date of execution, but was never registered in the Deeds Registry.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From the
evidence of the plaintiff, and that of his witnesses who gave evidence
concerning the Deed (Exhibit “A”), it does not appear that the plaintiff
himself had any personal knowledge of the alleged transaction of sale and
purchase which culminated (ostensibly at any rate) in the execution of the Deed
of Conveyance Exhibit “A”. That view of the matter is confirmed by the fact
that the plaintiff is not mentioned as having been present, either when the
plot was measured for the purpose of a plan being prepared by Mr. Selby,
Licensed Surveyor, or when the deed was alleged to have been executed, with
John MacCarthy and Ebenezer Barber as attesting witnesses. The result was that
at the trial, beyond producing and tendering the deed, and giving such general
evidence as appears capable of being collected in any case from the document
itself, the plaintiff was unable to give any further evidence as to the
circumstances and details of the alleged transaction of sale and purchase of
the plot in question.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>