TSRIFO vs. DUA VIII [1959]DLHC2065

Date	1959-02-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLHC2065

OLLENNU J.

APPELLANT IN PERSON.

DA ROCHA FOR RESPONDENT.

[1959]DLHC2065
																																						<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" >TSRIFO<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>DUA VIII <o:p></o:p>[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 63<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:
18TH FEBRUARY 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">

APPELLANT
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 history of the case, and proceeded;—) In their judgment the
native trial-Court made the following findings of fact:<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">“The
witnesses in this case supported plaintiff in their evidence in respect of the
case heard and determined in respect of the land in dispute . Except defence
witness Kwami, all of them mentioned the “Have” stream as the recognised
boundary mark between both parties land which came in conjunction with the
arbitration.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In other
words, the native trial-Court found the plaintiff’s claim (that the Have stream
is the boundary between his land and that of the defendant) confirmed by all
his witnesses, and by all but one of the witnesses for the defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Where the
evidence of one party on an issue in a suit is corroborated by witnesses of his
opponent, whilst that of his opponent on the same issue stands uncorroborated
even by his own witnesses, a Court ought not to accept the uncorroborated
version in preference to the corroborated one, unless for some good reason
(which must appear on the face of the judgment) the Court finds the
corroborated version incredible or impossible. In this case there is nothing in
the judgment which justified the native trial-Court’s rejection of the
plaintiff’s evidence, which on the record was corroborated both by his own
witnesses and those of the defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before
delivering their judgment, the native trial-Court inspected the land in dispute
and upon their return recorded their report of the inspection. On appeal, the
Kpandu District Appeal Court also inspected the land, saw most of the things
which the native trial-Court had seen, and they too recorded a report of what
they had seen. They then drew their own inferences from the things they had
seen, and upon those inferences (coupled with other facts in the case) they
delivered their judgment, reversing the decision of the native-trial-Court.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the Appellant referred the Court to a judgment of the Court of Appeal,
delivered on the 29th October, 1958, confirming a judgment delivered
by me on the 28th of May, 1957. In that judgment I held:<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">“that as
the case rested mainly upon what the trial-Court saw at the inspection of the
boundary, and there being nothing to indicate that the Native Appeal Court were
shown something different from what the trial-Court saw, it was not open to the
Native Appeal Court to interfere with the findings of fact made by the native
trial-Court simply because, if they had heard the case at first instance, they would
have formed an opinion upon the evidence (including what they saw at the
inspection of the locus in quo) different from what the trial-Court formed.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
submitted that what I condemned in the Native App</main>