EGYIN vs. AYE [1962]DLSC1431

Date	1962-12-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLSC1431

VAN LARE JSC

OLLENNU JSC

AKUFO-ADDO J.S.C.

D. K. AFREH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

RESPONDENT IN PERSON.

[1962]DLSC1431
																																						<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">EGYIN <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">AYE <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 2 GLR 187<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">

D.
K. AFREH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF VAN
LARE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Van Lare J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The case
which the appellant put up is that the land, the subject-matter of this
dispute, known as Odumasi land, is the ancestral property of his family, and
that the same was acquired by his ancestor Inkabi by cultivation of the virgin
forest and reducing it into his possession; that Inkabi permitted his
grand-daughter, one Poprodo, to occupy the land; that upon the death of Inkabi,
Effua Kum, his sister, and mother of the appellant, also permitted Poprodo to
continue in occupation, and Poprodo built a village on the land which she named
Misire Nyami, which has become the other name of the land. He sued, according
to him, because the respondent who got to the land through Poprodo was claiming
the land as the ancestral property of his family, the Dihyina family.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case of the respondent on the other hand is that the land is
his ancestral property acquired by his ancestor Breman who was a brother of
Nyaku and uncle to Poprodo, Kwami Fosu and Biney; that Nyaku succeeded Breman
and took charge of the land; that Nyaku was succeeded by his nephew one Kwami
Fosu who thereupon placed his nephew one Kofi Anku in charge of the land; that
Kofi Anku pledged the land to one Essel for a loan of £30, and thereupon Essel
occupied the land for some time exercising full acts of ownership, and when
later Essel demanded payment of the loan, Biney paid the amount and redeemed
the land for the family and placed Poprodo and himself, the respondent, in
charge thereof. The respondent further contended that he had successfully
litigated the family’s title to the land in a number of suits, to the knowledge
of the appellant and his family, the first of which was heard in 1920; another
was in 1951.<o:p></o:p>When the appellant said that Breman was his ancestor, he explained
that he was not a blood relation of Breman, but was a domestic of Breman’s
nephew Biney and was adopted by Biney’s sister Poprodo as her child, and that
he had identified himself all his life with the family of his former master. By
customary law, the respondent is a member of Breman family otherwise known as
the Dihyina family and therefore has every justification to refer to Breman as
his ancestor.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The native court accepted the case of the appellant and entered
judgment for him against the respondent for declaration of his title and
recovery of possession. The respondent appealed from that judgment to the Land
Court. The Land Court allowed the appeal on two main grounds, (1) that the
appellant was estopped from disputing the title of the respondent’s family to
the Odumasi lands because he and his family, knowing full well that the
respondent was litigating his family’s title to the land over the years, sat by
and did not intervene to assert their title to it; and (2) the appellant failed
to discharge the onus which lay upon him, as plaintiff, to prove his title
satisfactorily.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before us, the judgment of the Land Court was attacked on three
main grounds namely: (i) that the learned
judge misdirected himself in holding that the appellant was estopped by conduct
from disputing the respondent’s family’s title; <o:p></o:p>(ii) That the
declaration of the learned judge that the judgment of the native court was
wrong because the appellant failed to discharge the onus upon him is
unjustified, and consequently <o:p></o:p>(iii) That
learned judge erred in setting aside findings of fact made by the trial native
court which saw and heard the witnesses.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>