ADIKA AND OTHERS v. DOE [1961]DLSC510

Date	1961-10-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLSC510

PREMPEH J

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

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

[1961]DLSC510
																																						<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" >

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><p align="center" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: center; 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: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: center; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; font-size: 1rem;">v.<o:p></o:p><p align="center" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: center; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; font-size: 1rem;">&nbsp;DOE<o:p></o:p><p align="center" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: center; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; font-size: 1rem;">&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p><p align="center" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: center; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; font-size: 1rem;">[1961] GLR 627<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">

<p align="right" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: right; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: none; padding: 0cm; font-size: 1rem;">DATE:&nbsp;30TH OCTOBER, 1961.<o:p></o:p>

</div><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; font-size: 1rem;">F. T. C. AMORIN FOR
THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 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: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: none; padding: 0cm; font-size: 1rem;">J. W. DE GRAFT JOHNSON FOR THE
PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: none; padding: 0cm; font-size: 1rem;">PREMPEH, J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">JUDGMENT OF PREMPEH J.<o:p></o:p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; 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: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; font-size: 1rem;">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; font-size: 1rem;">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: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; font-size: 1rem;">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; font-size: 1rem;">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 Owu.[1] In that
case, plaintiff sued for:<o:p></o:p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-align: justify; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; font-size: 1rem;">“the sum of £25 damages from the defendant to show cause why if
the plaintiff promised to show him boundary of land of forest on his own wish
and has not got the chance to do so, the defendant seized the plaintiff from
entering into the said land of forest in which farms are made for foodstuffs.”<o:p></o:p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; font-size: 1rem;">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>