COFIE vs. OTOO [1959]DLHC2001

Date	1959-09-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLHC2001

OLLENNU J.

PLAINTIFF IN PERSON.

OBETSEBI LAMPTEY FOR DEFENDANT.

[1959]DLHC2001
																																						<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">COFIE <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">OTOO<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (LANDS DIVISION), ACCRA]<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 300<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:
14TH SEPTEMBER, 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">

PLAINTIFF
IN PERSON.<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">

OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>(His
lordship stated the facts, and continued : -<o:p></o:p>It was
submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that as the land had been conveyed to the
defendant under a solemn deed of conveyance, it was not open to her either to
plead (or to lead evidence to prove) a prior sale of - the same land to her by
an oral agreement. It was further submitted that the effect of that extrinsic
evidence of events which happened prior to the execution of the deed is to vary
the contents of the solemn deed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I cannot
see the force of this submission. No objection was raised to the admission of
the evidence in question; in fact, one of the pieces of evidence in that behalf
was tendered on behalf of the plaintiff. I refer to Exhibit “E”, which is a
receipt Afful gave to the defendant some time before the date of the execution
of the defendant’s document, and it is for part-payment made by the defendant
of the price of the land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I
understand the law to be that extrinsic evidence of transactions which have
culminated in a deed are not admissible to prove that the contents of the deed
do not represent the true agreement between the parties. But the oral and
documentary evidence tendered by the defendant in proof of the averments in her
statement of defence do not seek to vary the contents of her deed. Her main
point is that she has been in active possession of the land in dispute as owner
thereof long before the date of her deed; and that even though the deed does
not recite the fact that it was executed to evidence a fact already in
existence, that omission to recite the original sale does not affect the
transfer already completed, or make the deed more than a mere written evidence
of a transfer of land already effected as between natives.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Following
upon his submission that the evidence of the oral sale to the defendant should
be rejected, and the defendant strictly held to her deed of conveyance of the
14th April, 1955, learned counsel for the plaintiff with great seriousness
invited the Court to hold that the case rests entirely upon priority as between
the plaintiff’s deed of conveyance dated the 26th February, 1953, and that of
the defendant dated the 14th April, 1955. Counsel accordingly submitted that because
the date of his client’s deed is earlier in time than that of the defendant,
the plaintiff is entitled to the relief he seeks. Had both documents been
registered or both unregistered, there would have been substance in this
submission that and the Court had to consider was priority as to the respective
dates of execution of the deeds. But, as pointed out above, the plaintiff’s
deed has not been registered. The Court must therefore be guided by the law
laid down in the Land Registry Ordinance for determining priority between
instruments which are subject to the ordinance. Section 21(1) of the Ordinance
provides as follows:—<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">“21(1)
Every instrument executed on or after the 24th day of March 1883 (except a will
and except a Judge’s certificate signed before the commencement of this
Ordinance) shall, so far as regards any land effected thereby, take effect as
against other instruments affecting the same land from the date of its
registration: Provided that every such instrument shall take effect from the
date of its execution, if registered within such of the following periods as
shall be applicable to it, that is to say: <o:p></o:p>