BISSAH vs. GYAMPOH III [1964]DLSC1877

Date	1964-06-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1877

SARKODEE-ADOO C.J.

MILLS-ODOI JSC

AKAINYAH J.S.C.

C. F. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR THE APPELLANT.

QUASHIE-IDUN FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1964]DLSC1877
																																						<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" >BISSAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>GYAMPOH III <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 381<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
22 JUNE 1964.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

C. F. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

QUASHIE-IDUN FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

SARKODEE-ADOO C.J., MILLS-ODOI AND
AKAINYAH JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE-ADDO C.J.<o:p></o:p>This
appeal is in respect of a piece or parcel of land known and called Amanta. The
respondent as the plaintiff in this case by his statement of claim pleaded
thus: [His lordship here read the statement of claim, the defence and the reply
as summarised in the headnote and continued:]<o:p></o:p>The claim
in the 1937 case of which exhibit C is the judgment is in the manner following:<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">“Plaintiff
claims from defendant the sum of £50 being damages for trespass in violation of
the oath sworn on defendant five years ago to wit: Encroaching on plaintiff’s
pieces or parcels of land situated and lying at Abotumtum, Akwakom, Akum and
Tokuroano whereby as a result of such trespass, the plaintiff’s subjects have
been circumscribed or deprived from extending their food farms.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
operative conclusions of the judgment dated 16 September 1937 (exhibit C) are
as follows:<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">“Now
therefore, after considering all the evidence which we have heard, and
considering what is the most probable explanation of the conflicting claims, it
is our opinion that Adoji, and not Akwakom, is the boundary between Dapaa and
Dodo.<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">Furthermore,
we are convinced that it was the plain intention of this court, when giving
judgment on 20 September 1930 that Adoji should be recognised and accepted as a
boundary between the lands of Dapaa and Dodo, and not merely as a mark to
restrict the sale of land: and moreover we are satisfied that the line which
was cut from Adoji to Deduase was cut by the order of this court in execution
of that same judgment, and intended to be the boundary between Dapaa and Dodo.
And lastly, we are of the opinion that, quite apart from the possible
undesirability of upsetting a judgment which was given by this court seven
years ago, and from which no attempt has been made to appeal, the plaintiffs in
this case have shown no good reason why that judgment should be changed.<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">We now
therefore give judgment in favour of the defendants herein, and define the
boundary between Dapaa and Dodo in accordance with their statement to be from
Abotumtum to Adoji to Deduase, to Tokuroano; this judgment being without
prejudice to any but the two present parties to this case. And we order that
the costs of this case be borne by the plaintiffs.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It should
be observed that although the 1937 action was in damages for an alleged
trespass, the native authority court proceeded to hear and determine the limits
of the respective areas claimed by the Dapaas and Dodos. The defendants did not
counterclaim in that action and as had been quoted supra, judgment was given in
favour of the defendants (who are also the defendants in the action from which
this appeal has been brought) and further proceeded to define the boundary
between them. In the instant action the respondent purporting to follow the
alleged defined boundary has with the active participation of the appellant
re-introduced and re-litigated the indentical issues in the former action in
1937.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
witness for the respondent, Okyeame Emmanuel Kwadjo, the linguist for the Dapaa
stool who was authorised to represent the Dapaa stool and to give evidence for
and on behalf of the said stool in the course of his evidence, said:<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-shad</main>