AGBOADA v. KPONOR AND OTHERS [1961]DLHC541

Date	1961-11-15
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC541

PREMPEH J

J. ARTHUR FOR THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

F. T. C. AMORIN FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

[1961]DLHC541
																																						<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" >

&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, HO]

[1961] GLR 670

DATE: 15TH NOVEMBER, 1961.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

J.
ARTHUR FOR THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

F.
T. C. AMORIN FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

</div>

PREMPEH, J.

</div>

&nbsp;

In this appeal the trial court held that the
plaintiff-appellant-respondent who claimed a declaration of title to the land
the subject matter of the dispute — by means of purchase had failed to
establish his title thereto, and it dismissed the respondent’s claim.

On the evidence it is clear that the respondent failed to call his
vendor as a witness, nor did he join him as a party to the suit to protect his
title, and in my view, the trial court quite properly held as it did. It is my
further view that the judgment of the native appeal court reversing that of the
trial court is erroneous.

Counsel has drawn the court’s attention to a judgment of this
court given on the 13th October, 1961, in a suit entitled Amegago Kponor,
Kwashie Kponor, J. J. Kponor, and Dzitorwoko v. Agbenuza Allitor, H. K.
Atitsogbui, Akaba K. B. Agbodzo, and K. E. Boati. It is to be noted that the
plaintiffs-respondents therein are the defendants-appellants herein, and from
the evidence in this case, it is clear that some of the appellants in that
case, in particular Agbenuza Allitor, are the vendors of the
plaintiff-respondent herein of this same area of land in dispute.

I have taken judicial notice of that judgment, and I permitted it
to be put in evidence and marked exhibit A. In that judgment, the
defendants-appellants herein were adjudged by the trial court as the right
owners of the land which is the same as the one now in dispute, and that
judgment was confirmed on appeal by this court. I cannot see how in these
circumstances the plaintiff-respondent can be entitled to the land the
subject-matter of this dispute.

In spite of the fact that the appeal was fixed for hearing for the
8th November, 1961, on his own application, the plaintiff-respondent failed to
appear to argue his appeal. For the reasons stated above, I must allow this
appeal, and set aside the judgment of the South Anlo Appeal Court and restore
that of the South Anlo Local Court “A”.

I award the appellants costs in this court which I assess at 30
guineas, and direct that they shall have their taxed costs in the native appeal
court.

<a name="_gjdgxs"></a>&nbsp;