DONKOH vs. NKRUMAH AND OTHERS [1964]DLSC1897

Date	1964-02-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1897

SARKODEE-ADOO C.J

OLLENNU JSC

BLAY J.S.C.

DR. DE GRAFT-JOHNSON FOR THE APPELLANT.

S. K. K. SOTOMEY FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1964]DLSC1897
																																						<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" >DONKOH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>NKRUMAH AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 739<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">

DR. DE GRAFT-JOHNSON FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

S. K. K. SOTOMEY FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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., OLLENNU AND BLAY
JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>This
appeal is brought against a judgment of the High Court, Kumasi, reversing a
judgment delivered by the Kumasi East Local Court in favour of the appellant,
the plaintiff in the said local court. The appellant is hereafter referred to
as the plaintiff, and the respondents referred to as the defendants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The basis
of the decision of the High Court is that the plaintiff is estopped per rem
judicatam from instituting her action by reason of a judgment given against her
by the Juaso-Bompata Local Court C on 14 April 1959, affirmed by the
Asantehene’s Court, and eventually affirmed by the local court. The appeal
raises some important points of law, both substantive and procedural, which are
not of frequent occurrence in the courts. A short statement of the history of
the litigation will facilitate appreciation of those points of law raised.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff is the successor to one Yaw Poku of New Juaben, who died in or about
1959. When she entered upon her office as successor, she found the first defendant
and another person in possession of a farm which belonged to her predecessor.
According to her she questioned the first defendant how they got into
possession of the said farm but he gave no explanation; she then swore to an
affidavit asserting her family’s ownership of the said farm, and served a copy
thereof upon the first defendant and that other, requesting them to vacate and
give her vacant possession of the farm. There was no response from the first
defendant and his associate; whereupon the plaintiff sued them in the aforesaid
Juaso-Bompata Local Court C for recovery of possession; her claim in that suit
was 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">“(a)
Plaintiff claims from the defendants jointly and severally a judicial relief
for defendants to assign their tangible reasons why defendants should
unlawfully seize and take possession of plaintiff’s cocoa farm, being lying at
a place commonly known and called ‘Kantanagya’ on Atwedie stool land and
bounded by the farms belonging to Kwasi Yentumi, Yaa Adansi, Kwasi Badu, and Kwadwo
Adai—stream Saantin, Kofi Wee, without the consent and knowledge of plaintiff. <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">(b)
Defendants to assign their good reasons why defendants should unlawfully seize
the cocoa farm as their bona fide property without the consent of plaintiff. <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">(c) In
default plaintiff claims lawful possession over the said cocoa farm.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
proceedings and judgment in that case before the Juaso-Bompata Local Court C
were admitted and made part of the proceedings in this case before the trial
local court. There were no pleadings, the trial being in the local court; and
although the first defendant, who was also the first defendant in that suit,
did in cross-examination ask the plaintiff whether she had not heard of a sale
of the said farm under a writ of fi fa., which the plaintiff answered in the
negative, it was not until the second defendant gave evidence that he disclosed
that he relied, for his possession of the farm, upon purchase thereof at a sale
at public auction conducted under a writ of fi. fa., which he alleged was
issued by the Juaben Local Court B in execution of a decree against the
plaintiff’s predecessor, to satisfy the sum £15 17s. 11d. which was costs in a
suit by Kofi Nkrumah against the said Yaw Poku. Upon the production by the
first defendant of the certificate of purchase allegedly issued to him upon the
said sale, the local court entered judgment for him saying inter alia:<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">“The
defendants, evidence revealed that the first defendant bought the cocoa farm in
question under writ of fi. fa. in case Kofi Nkrumah v. Yaw Poku in the Juaben
Native Court and produced certificate of purchase with writ of possession
attached as exhibit dat</main>