ASARE vs. DONKOR AND SERWAH II [1962]DLSC1361

Date	1962-12-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLSC1361

SARKODEE-ADOO JSC

OLLENNU JSC

AKUFO-ADDO J.S.C.

N. Y. B. ADADE FOR THE DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

VICTOR OWUSU FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.

[1962]DLSC1361
																																						<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">ASARE <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">DONKOR AND SERWAH II<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] 2 GLR 176<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"> 21ST DECEMBER, 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">

N.
Y. B. ADADE FOR THE DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

VICTOR
OWUSU FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-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">

SARKODEE-ADOO, OLLENNU AND AKUFO-ADDO,
JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
OLLENNU J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Ollennu J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. In this
action, the identity of the land was not in dispute, and all the parties were
agreed that the land is a portion of the lands of the Odikro of Nagodi under
the stool of Nyinahin, and that the Odikro and his elders are the proper
persons to make valid grants of it. They were also agreed that the Odikro, one
Mathew Anokye made a grant of a portion of his stool land at one time to the
first appellant, and a portion at another time to the plaintiff. Claiming that
the area in dispute formed part of the land granted to him, the first appellant
transferred it to the second appellant, an Omanhene of another state, and
placed her in possession. The respondent resisted entry of the appellants upon
the land, maintaining that the land is in his possession as owner, as part of
the land lawfully granted to him by the Odikro. The appellants then lodged
complaint against him with the Nyinahinhene, who, purporting to arbitrate on
the dispute between the parties, declared the grant made to the respondent to
be null and void and ordered the respondent to remove all his crops from the
land and give vacant possession thereof to the second appellant. The respondent
then sued.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The main issues joined between the parties are: (1) to whom was
the grant of the land in dispute made: the respondent or the first appellant,
and (2) had the dispute been arbitrated upon by the Nyinahinhene? After hearing
evidence, the local court inspected the land before delivering judgment. Each
of the three members of the local court recorded his opinion, which together
formed the basis of the judgment against the respondent.<o:p></o:p>The respondent appealed against that judgment to the High Court,
which allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the local court, and
entered judgment for the respondent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Four grounds of appeal were argued before us; they may be
summarised as follows: (1) the learned judge erred in that he gave undue weight
to the case for the plaintiff, but failed to consider the case for the defence;
(2) the learned judge erred in reversing the findings of fact made by the local
court based on a story of the defendants which stood almost unchallenged, and
upon impressions which they formed upon inspection of the land; (3) that having
rejected the findings of fact made by the local court, the High Court failed to
make any findings of its own upon which it could properly enter judgment in
favour of the plaintiff, and (4) the judgment is against the weight of
evidence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The submissions that the learned judge failed to consider the case
for the defence, and also failed to make findings which warranted an entry of
judgment in favour of the respondent as plaintiff, have no foundation. Unlike
the local court, the learned judge did consider the principal issues in the
case, namely: (1) did Mathew Anokye, the Odikro of Nagodi, grant this land to
the respondent, or did he grant it to the first appellant, and (2) had the
dispute been arbitrated upon?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The only way whereby that first issue can be determined is through
the evidence of the said Mathew Anokye and evidence of any other eye witness to
the separate grants. The parties were agreed that the only other eye witness to
the two transactions was one Gyantutu. The appellants subpoenaed the said
Gyantutu, and the respondent subpoenaed Mathew Anokye.<o:p></o:p>