BONNEY vs. YANKUM AND OTHERS [1961]DLSC867

Date	1961-03-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLSC867

KORSAH JSC

C.J. JSC

VAN LARE JSC

AKIWUMI JSC

E. B. GAISIE FOR THE APPELLANT

R. S. BLAY FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1961]DLSC867
																																						<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;vs.

&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT]

[1961] GLR 133

DATE: 1ST MARCH, 1961.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

E.
B. GAISIE FOR THE APPELLANT.

</div>

KORSAH C.J., VAN LARE AND
AKIWUMI, JJ.S.C.

</div>

&nbsp;

Korsah C.J. delivered the judgment of the court. [His lordship
referred to the facts and continued:] The trial court, not withstanding the
plaintiff’s failure to adduce satisfactory evidence, found for the plaintiff,
which according to counsel for the plaintiff (the respondent herein) may be
supported by a presumption that the panel of the trial court might have been
influenced by their knowledge of local facts which were not adduced at the
hearing. It is fantastic to contend that a court can be influenced by any
evidence not adduced before it.

On appeal to the Land Court, the learned judge while conceding to
the paucity of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s claim for declaration of
title, said:

&nbsp;“The plaintiff’s evidence
to which I have referred is not a great deal. The local court held that there
was sufficient evidence, and although I confess to having had some difficulty
on the point, I am not prepared to disturb the finding of the local court in
favour of the plaintiff, and the appeal is therefore dismissed.”

“The Appeal Court is not debarred however from coming to its own
conclusion on the facts and where a judgment has been appealed from on the
ground of the weight of evidence the Appeal Court can make up its own mind on
the evidence; not disregarding the judgment appealed from but carefully
weighing and considering it and not shrinking from overruling it if on full
consideration it comes to the conclusion that the judgment is wrong.”

In our view, as the learned judge of the Land Court was of the
opinion that the evidence was insufficient to support the plaintiff’s claim, he
should not have shrunk from overruling and setting aside the decision of the
trial municipal court. In our opinion the learned judge erred by not allowing
the appeal. We are therefore left to make the order which the Land Court ought
to have made. In the result we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment
together with the orders as to costs of the Land Court and of the trial
municipal court and enter judgment for the defendants.

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