AGBALE AND OTHERS vs. AKOGO AND OTHER [1962]DLHC1334

Date	1962-04-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1334

PREMPEH J.

F.T.C. AMORIN FOR THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

I.N.K. WUAKU FOR THE PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

[1962]DLHC1334
																																						<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:#00B0F0">AGBALE AND OTHERS <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:#00B0F0">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:#00B0F0">AKOGO AND OTHER<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, HO]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 293<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

DATE:<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:#00B0F0"> 26TH APRIL, 1962.<o:p></o:p>

</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">

F.T.C.
AMORIN FOR THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

I.N.K.
WUAKU FOR THE PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.<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 2.0pt 0in">

PREMPEH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
PREMPEH J.<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal from the judgment of the Wheta/Afife/Klikor
Native Court “B” delivered on the 10th October, 1958 in favour of the
defendants-respondents herein.<o:p></o:p>By their amended claim, the plaintiffs-appellants claimed against
the respondents a declaration of title to the land commonly called Agbadomi
land the boundaries of which are therein set out. They also claimed damages for
trespass and an order to eject the respondents from the land and for a
perpetual injunction.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The respondents also counterclaimed against the appellants for
declaration of title to and recovery of possession of the said land which
according to them is known as Djove land, the southern boundary of which varied
from that described by the appellants. The issue raised before the trial court
was whether the land, the subject-matter of the dispute belonged to the
appellants or to the respondents.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A mass of traditional evidence was led by both parties and after
having heard the evidence and inspecting the locus in quo, the trial court made
eleven findings, and thereafter entered judgment for the respondents. As can be
seen, these findings dwelt mainly upon the traditional evidence adduced,
seriously omitting to consider the important evidence of the appellants as to
rights of ownership exercised by them on the said land, and also what binding
effect those exhibits or some of them tendered by the appellants had upon the
respondents’ case.<o:p></o:p>Of the several grounds of appeal filed and argued the only one
which it is necessary to consider, as in my opinion it must prevail, is: “That
the judgment of the trial court is a nullity in that that court was irregularly
constituted”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In arguing this ground of appeal, counsel for the appellants
submitted that the question as to what the trial court found at the locus in
quo particularly in relation to the features and other acts of ownership on the
land by the appellants was highly relevant to its findings, and that the
proceedings in regard to the presentation of the viewers’ report and its
reception was therefore a very important factor in the proceedings. With this
submission I am entirely in agreement.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel then referred to that part of the proceedings recorded on
the 25th July, 1958 when the court re-assembled after the visit to the locus in
quo when the president of the court left his seat and entered the witness box,
where after being sworn, he gave very lengthy evidence as to what was seen on
the land, but he did not complete that evidence when the case was adjourned to
the 31st July, 1958. It is to be observed that although he was in the witness
box throughout that day, yet he signed the record as president, as if he had
conducted the proceedings that day.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>