MANSAH vs. NIMO AND OTHERS [1961]DLHC5415

Date	1961-07-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC5415

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.

DR. DE GRAFT-JOHNSON FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

DR. J. B. DANQUAH FOR THE CO-DEFENDANT - APPELLANT

[1961]DLHC5415
																																						<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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">MANSAH <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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">vs. <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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">NIMO AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<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">

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

DR.
DE GRAFT-JOHNSON FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

DR.
J. B. DANQUAH FOR THE CO-DEFENDANT - APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

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

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN, J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.<o:p></o:p>In this appeal against a judgment of the New Juaben Local Court in
favour of the plaintiff-respondent up-holding her claim to (a) declaration of
title, and (b) recovery of possession of a plot of land situate at a locality
called Betom in Koforidua on which has been erected a permanent block building
by the second defendant Afua Brofoyedru and her late mother (according to the
local court’s own findings), the crucial portion of the judgment of the court
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">“This court has considered the evidence of the first defendant and
second co-defendant, (and) there was justification that the plaintiff is
entitled for possessory right, because it is abundantly clear that there was
condition attached to the gift that at anytime that defendant Opanin Kofi Nimo
intended to put up a permanent building on the land, he should contact the
plaintiff for new arrangement and first defendant failed, which failure he has
appreciated in his statement.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On turning to examine the respective evidence of the first
defendant and the second co-defendant, we find the same to be evidence contrary
to regulation 82 of the Local Court (Procedure) Regulations 1(1)which provide
that: “The other party shall then be entitled to cross-examine such witness:—”
The trial local court did not in the case either of the first defendant or the
second co-defendant, after each had given evidence-in-chief, invite the first
co-defendant-appellant to cross-examine. Learned counsel for the
plaintiff-respondent has conceded that in these circumstances, the decision of
the court founded upon those “improper evidences” cannot be sustained. The
appeal therefore is hereby allowed, the judgment of the local court set aside
and the suit remitted for hearing de novo by a fresh panel.<o:p></o:p>As to costs, it is hereby ordered that the costs abide the trial
de novo, but in the meantime it is assessed at £G41 2s. Od. including 30
guineas counsel’s fee for the co-defendant-appellant, and £G35 9s. 6d. including
30 guineas counsel’s fee for the plaintiff-respondent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><a name="_gjdgxs"></a>DECISION<o:p></o:p>Case remitted for re-hearing.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>