EHURAN vs. ATTA [1960]DLSC318

Date	1960-11-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1960]DLSC318

VAN LARE J.S.C

GRANVILLE SHARP J.S.C

SARKODEE-ADOO J.S.C.

SHORT FOR PLAINTIFF (RESPONDENT)

C.F. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR DEFENDANT (APPELLANT).

[1960]DLSC318
																																						<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" >EHURAN <o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;ATTA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1960] GLR 224<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
28TH NOVEMBER, 1960.<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">

SHORT FOR PLAINTIFF (RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>

C.F. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR DEFENDANT (APPELLANT).<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">

VAN LARE, GRANVILLE SHARP AND SARKODEE-ADOO,
JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF GRANVILLE SHARP
J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Granveille
Sharp, J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court: The action in connection
with which this appeal arises was brought by the respondent ostensibly to
recover damages for trespass from the appellant.<o:p></o:p>The
summons was in the following terms:—<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
plaintiff herein claims from the defendant herein the sum of £G50 being damages
for trespass committed by defendant on plaintiff ‘s family land known as and
called ‘Abaka Ekyir’ situate lying and being at Ekon in Cape Coast District of
the Western Region of Ghana and bounded on one side by the land belonging to
Kwamin Dadzie’s family on another side by the land belonging to Kofi Buranyi’s
family on another side by land belonging to Kweku Donkor’s family and on
another side by land belonging to Tutu Dadzie’s family. And for injunction
restraining the said Kweku Ehuran the defendant herein from entering on the
said land or for having anything to do on the said land in dispute herein
pending the hearing and determination of the above case.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The land
described in the summons was depicted on a plan which was exhibited in the
course of the hearing before the municipal court. It is a tract of land of
considerable extent and nowhere on the plan and nowhere in the evidence that
was adduced at the hearing is the place upon which trespass was alleged to have
taken place identified either by description or by delineation. In fact it is
apparent from the oral testimony, and from the exhibits which comprise a number
of judgments in previous litigations about the same land, that the issue raised
by the action for trespass was in reality an issue as to title and the general
effect of the judgment of the municipal court was that on a review of the
evidence it was clear that the plaintiff had failed to establish a title
superior to that of the defendant in the action.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
court the plaintiff was the respondent seeking to support the judgment of Mr.
Commissioner S. A. Attoh which reversed the decision of the municipal court and
entered judgment in his favour, but, significantly did not award to him any
damages in respect of the alleged, but unidentified trespass. From this latter
circumstance and from the judgment generally it seems clear that the learned
commissioner himself treated the matter as involving a claim for title to the
land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
series of previous judgments to which we have referred were found in both
courts below to establish that the root of title to the land described in the
summons resided in one Kofi Tor and his descendants and that neither the plaintiff
nor the defendant in the action could lay claim to be a descendant of Kofi Tor.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr.
Benjamin for the appellant before us, justifiably on the evidence, emphasised
the fact that both the appellant and the respondent, each of whom was claiming
title to the whole of the Abaka Ekyir lands, were occupying portions of it and
contended that the respondent who was the plaintiff could not succeed unless he
could prove that his title derived from Kofi Tor, the root of title to the
land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>