ADIKA AND OTHERS v. DOE [1961]DLHC280

Date	1961-10-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC280

PREMPEH J

F. T. C. AMORIN FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

J. W. DE GRAFT JOHNSON FOR THE PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS

[1961]DLHC280
																																						<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" >

<p align="center" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: center; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">ADIKA AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p><p align="center" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: center; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">vs.<o:p></o:p><p align="center" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; text-align: center; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">&nbsp;DOE<o:p></o:p><p align="center" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: center; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[HIGH COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: none; padding: 0in;">[1961] GLR 627&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;DATE: 30TH OCTOBER, 1961<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: none; padding: 0in;">F. T. C. AMORIN FOR THE
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: none; padding: 0in;">J. W. DE GRAFT JOHNSON FOR THE
PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: none; padding: 0in;">PREMPEH,
J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">PREMPEH J.<o:p></o:p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">In this appeal, it is clear that the
plaintiffs-respondents utterly failed to prove their title to the land which
they claimed in paragraph 1 of their writ of summons. Quite apart from this
fact, the native trial court erroneously shifted the burden of proof to title
to the disputed land on the defendant-appellant. At the close of the case, the
appellant submitted that the respondents had failed to establish their claim,
and that they had therefore made no case against him to answer, but the court
proceeded to enter judgment for the respondents, granting them title to the
land. On the evidence as to the respondents’ first claim it is my view that the
trial court erred in ruling out the submission of the appellant, and that it
further erred in giving judgment for the respondents as it did.<o:p></o:p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">In this court, counsel for the respondents did not seek
to support the trial court’s judgment in any way. He in fact urged that the whole
judgment should be set aside, not on the grounds as contended by the appellant,
but on account of the fact that the trial court had no jurisdiction to
entertain the plaintiffs’ claims appearing in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the
particulars of claim, and referred to that part of the judgment which purported
to deal with the second remedy sought by the respondents in paragraph 2 of the
particulars of claim. I think this is an interesting point.<o:p></o:p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The respondents’ second remedy in the particulars of
claim is clearly one in tort for £G600 damages for unlawful arrest, and one in
which if damages were allowed, an appeal could not lie to this court: see
Solomon Jonah v. Kojo O</main>