NORQUAYE-TETTEH (EMMANUEL) vs. MALM & ANOR. AND NORQUAYE-TETTEH (DAVID QUAO) vs. MALM & ANOR. (CONSOLIDATED) [1959]DLSC2032

NORQUAYE-TETTEH (EMMANUEL) vs. MALM & ANOR. AND NORQUAYE-TETTEH (DAVID QUAO) vs... [1959]DLSC2032

Date	1959-11-09
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLSC2032

OLLENNU J.

AKUFO-ADDO FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

LOKKO FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1959]DLSC2032
																																						<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">NORQUAYE-TETTEH (EMMANUEL) vs. MALM &amp; ANOR. <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">AND<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">NORQUAYE-TETTEH (DAVID QUAO) vs. MALM &amp; ANOR.<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">(CONSOLIDATED)<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 368<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:
9TH NOVEMBER, 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">

AKUFO-ADDO
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<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 is
admitted by the plaintiffs that Nii Abose Okai was a competent authority to convey
Akumadjaye Stool land, and that consequently Exhibit “1” executed by him is a
valid document. And, of course, it is admitted by the defendants too, that Nii
Ayikai being the occupant of the said Akumadjaye Stool is a competent authority
to alienate lands of the stool, and that, in consequence, Exhibit “B” and
Exhibit “C,” executed by him, are both valid documents.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the plaintiffs submitted, however, that the land in dispute could not be
the identical land which Nii Abose Okai had granted and conveyed to the late
Henerike Cornelius Malm, because<o:p></o:p>(1) there
are no data on the plan attached to Exhibit “1” which identify the land subject
matter of that deed, with the land in dispute,<o:p></o:p>(2) the
report Exhibit “A” issued by the Registrar of Deed, when a search was made in
his registry against the lands subject matter of the suit, showed that it was
affected only by the deeds of the two plaintiffs Exhibit “B” and Exhibit “C”,
which means that Exhibit “1” and Exhibit “2” which are registered, are not deeds
in respect of the identical land, for if they were the report Exhibit “A” would
have so indicated, and<o:p></o:p>(3) that
Nii Ayikai, the occupant of the Akumadjaye Stool, had himself given evidence
identifying the land in dispute as that in respect of which he had executed the
deeds Exhibit “B” and Exhibit “C”.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
submitted that in these circumstances the onus was upon the defendants to prove
by positive evidence of occupation that the land in dispute was the identical
land which the stool by the deed Exhibit.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“1” (which is prior in time to Exhibits “B”
and “C”) had granted to the defendants’ predecessor in title.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Upon the
assumption that the onus is upon the defendants, Counsel for the plaintiffs
submitted that the defendants had failed to discharge that onus, because the
only evidence which they led of their occupation of the land was evidence of
the existence of three mango trees on the land, the fruits of which they allege
they have been harvesting. Counsel submitted that harvesting of the fruits of the
mango trees on the land is not sufficient evidence to show that the land is in
the possession of the defendants. In support of that su</main>