ABABIO vs. TUTU [1962]DLSC1301

Date	1962-06-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLSC1301

KORSAH JSC

C.J. JSC

VAN LARE JSC

ADUMUA-BOSSMANJ.S.C.

R.S. BLAY (WITH HIM N. Y. B. ADADE) FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

E. AKUFO-ADDO (WITH HIM PREMPEH) FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

[1962]DLSC1301
																																						<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">ABABIO <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">&nbsp;TUTU<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;[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 489<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"> 25TH JUNE, 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">

R.S.
BLAY (WITH HIM N. Y. B. ADADE) FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

E.
AKUFO-ADDO (WITH HIM PREMPEH), FOR THE 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 2.0pt 0in">

KORSAH, C.J., VAN LARE AND ADUMUA-BOSSMAN, JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Adumua-Bossman, J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. This
appeal is against a judgment dated the 20th January, 1961, of the High Court,
Kumasi constituted by Apaloo, J., whereby he disallowed the
plaintiff-appellant’s claim for damages for trespass in an area of land alleged
to be Ahuren stool land, and gave judgment in favour of the defendant
—respondent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The parties are adjoining landowners, and the action raised for
determination, firstly, the issue as to which of two conflicting boundary lines
shown by each of them respectively (as indicated in plan prepared for the trial
of the action and marked exhibit A) and claimed to be the common boundary
demarcated sometime in 1901 by a body of customary arbitrators between their
respective contiguous stool lands, is the true and correct boundary which the
said arbitrators decided on, and established or settled between them. The
action also raised the consequential issue as to the ownership of the
intermediate area of land between the said two boundary lines claimed
respectively by the parties.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The learned trial judge after hearing all the evidence and sifting
the same carefully, proceeded to express reliance on certain crucial portions
thereof put forward on behalf of the defendant-respondent, and after further
expressing some cogent and weighty reasons, concluded by accepting the boundary
claimed by the defendant-respondent in preference to that claimed by the
plaintiff-appellant. In respect of that decision, after a careful study of the
evidence adduced on behalf of each party, we have formed the opinion that the
learned judge’s preference for the boundary claimed by the defendant-respondent
is amply justified by the evidence on record, and by the learned judge’s
impressive evaluation of the whole evidence in the case and his convincing
reasoning and deductions there from.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this appeal, effort has been made by learned counsel for the
plaintiff-appellant to impugn the learned trial judge’s decision on the ground
that it is against the weight of the evidence. Counsel’s arguments in this
connection, however, have been quite unconvincing, and, as already indicated,
we find the learned judge’s decision amply warranted.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel however urged and pressed another ground of challenge
against the judgment and insisted that the learned judge erred in deciding the
case in favour of the defendant-respondent, alleging that there was no
defendant before the trial court. He referred to page 50 of the record where
the following appears:<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">“On Wednesday, 11th January, 1961, before Apaloo, J. Part - Heard
— Resumed from 1st November, 1960 p. 99. Amoaten for plaintiff. Lutterodt for
defendant. Lutterodt:— I understand Chief of Assachere has abdicated and no one
occupying stool. I ask for short adjournment to make a substitution. Amoaten:—
I must point out this case started long ago. It is most unfortunate. I am for
plaintiff and suggest some witnesses be taken. Court:— This writ was issued
since 1937 and has had a most unfortunate career. It was part-heard from 1st
November, 1960 and fixed for two days. I am not prepared to give opportunity
for the hearing of this suit to be prolonged further, especially in view of the
fact that if I accede to this application now, this suit may not be hear</main>