DANKWA vs. POKU [1964]DLSC1891

Date	1964-02-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1891

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN JSC

MILLS-ODOI JSC

OLLENNU J.S.C.

D. S. EFFAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

J. E. C. LUTTERODT FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1964]DLSC1891
																																						<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" >DANKWA <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>POKU <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 119<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:
29 FEBRUARY 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">

D. S. EFFAH FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

J. E. C. LUTTERODT 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">

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN, MILLS-ODOI AND OLLENNU 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. This is an appeal from a judgment
of the High Court, holden at Sunyani, given in favour of the respondent,
hereinafter called the plaintiff, for a declaration of title to, and recovery
of possession of two farms, and for damages for trespass to the said farms.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Each of
the parties, the plaintiff and the appellant, hereinafter called the defendant,
claimed to have purchased two farms at a sale at a public auction conducted
under a mortgage; the plaintiff claimed to have made his purchase on 28
September 1953, at a sale at a public auction made under the authority of a
deed of mortgage dated 16 May 1952, while the defendant claimed that he made
his purchase on 19 May 1953, at a sale at a public auction conducted in exercise
of powers of sale contained in a deed of mortgage executed on 30 June 1952. The
basis of the judgment of the High Court is that the deed of mortgage under
which the plaintiff purchased the properties is prior in time to the deed of
mortgage under which the defendant purchased, and that the mortgagor in the one
instance is the same person as the mortgagor in the other case, and that the
said mortgagor is one Kwabena Mensah.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the defendant conceded that the principle of law as to the priorities
between two mortgages was correctly stated by the learned judge of the High
Court. He however submitted that the principle was wrongly applied in this case
because the facts which should support its application are non-existent.<o:p></o:p>For the
principle of priorities among persons claiming under two different mortgages to
apply, three conditions must be proved to exist, namely: <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
each of the two mortgages is a legal mortgage, <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
the subject-matter of the two mortgages is the same, and <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The mortgagor in the two cases is one and the same person.
All these are questions of fact, and a party who claims by right of priority
between two mortgages cannot succeed unless he proves each and every one of
those three facts. If he fails to prove any one of them, his claim must fail.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Neither
the original deed of mortgage relied upon by the plaintiff in this case as his
root of title, nor a copy thereof, was produced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff
alleged that the said deed was retained by the auctioneer as it covered some
other properties bought by other people, that</main>