BOAFO vs. GYETUA [1962]DLHC1395

Date	1962-01-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1395

DJABANOR J.

Y. B. AMOATIN FOR N. Y. B. ADADE FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

OWUSU YAW FOR A. A. AKAINYAH FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

[1962]DLHC1395
																																						<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">BOAFO<o:p></o:p><a name="_gjdgxs"></a><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">&nbsp;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">GYETUA <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 4<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"> 10TH JANUARY, 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">

Y.
B. AMOATIN FOR N. Y. B. ADADE FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

OWUSU
YAW FOR A. A. AKAINYAH FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
DJABANOR J.<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal from the judgment of the local court magistrate
of the Kumasi West Local Court sitting at Teppa who gave judgment for the
defendant thereby dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for ownership, title and
occupation of a cocoa farm described in the writ of summons. The case went to
the High Court on appeal and was sent back to the local court for re-trial.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At this point it may be convenient to consider two points of law
raised. One was that the defendant is estopped from denying the plaintiff’s title
to the land because in a previous litigation between the plaintiff and another
man in which judgment went for the plaintiff, the defendant gave evidence for
the then loser. Another point raised was that this case had been adjudicated
upon before between the parties and that the plaintiff cannot now reopen it. I
regret that I am unable to uphold either of these submissions. The most
important requirement for either of these submissions to succeed has not been
satisfied, namely, that the land subject matter of the previous law suits
referred to is the same as the subject-matter in this one. The evidence on
record is singularly inadequate for any court to come to the conclusion that
these law suits were in respect of the same land. To some extent I am reinforced
in this view for the reason that this case has been on appeal to the High Court
and back. It is surprising that it is now being said that the law suit that
went to the West African Court of Appeal and the one between Yaw Badu and the
plaintiff herein concerned the same piece of land that is being disputed in
this case. These farms may be situate at Pobriso or Akrasuano, but they have
not been sufficiently described for one to apply the doctrine of res judicata
or of estoppel.<o:p></o:p>Now to the merits of this appeal. The case put up by the plaintiff
is that this piece of land was given to him by the then Manfo Odikro some
fifteen or sixteen years ago when he gave the Odikro about £G600 during the
latter’s litigation with the Akwaboahene in which the Odikro, with this
assistance, came out successful. The plaintiff said the Odikro made the
defendant and Yaw Fosu go and allocate the forest land to him and that he
started cultivating same and had made a cocoa farm on the land. He described
his boundary.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The defendant’s case is that the plaintiff had been given some
land but that it was he the defendant who gave him that land and not the chief.
It appears also that after recovering the farm which Okyere cultivated and
which the plaintiff had then taken, in an action against the plaintiff, the
defendant took not only what Okyere had trespassed over but the plaintiff’s own
farm which the defendant had originally gifted to him. From the judgment it
appears that the defendant took this course because the plaintiff denied that
it was he, the defendant, who gave the plaintiff the land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Much evidence was adduced in support of either case and the local
court visited the locus. It found that Pobriso and Akrasuano refer to the same
land. The local court furthermore found “that there is no difference between
the first action taken by the defendant against the plaintiff which ended in
the West African Court of Appeal in favour of the defendant in the present
action and the present case before this local court”. I am unable to find the
evidence on record which led the local court to that conclusion. The writs in
the previous cases and the judgments and pieces of evidence tendered do not in
my view support the contention that this land is the same as that litigated
over up to the West African Court of Appeal. If the local court supplied the
evidence for this from its visit to the locus in this case then it is wrong in
so doing. There is evidence, which has been believed, which justifies the local
court’s finding that the land was not gifted to the plaintiff by the Odikro of
Manfo but rather by the defendant himself. From this finding the local court
drew two inferences upon which it based its judgment. The first is that
“defendant admitted that the plaintiff possesses a farm in the disputed area
but in view of the fact that he denied that the defendant had given him the
land but the Odikro of Manfo, he had taken b</main>