DOMPREH vs. PONG AND OTHERS [1965]DLSC1797

Date	1965-03-08
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLSC1797

MILLS - ODOI JSC

OLLENNU JSC

SIRIBOE J.S.C.

G. D. AMPAW FOR THE APPELLANT.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS.

[1965]DLSC1797
																																						<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" >DOMPREH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>PONG AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 126<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:
8 MARCH 1965.<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">

G. D. AMPAW FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF 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">

MILLS - ODOI, OLLENNU AND SIRIBOE
JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MILLS-ODOI, J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff in this action has appealed to this court against the judgment of
Sowah J., dated 8 February 1963 by which the learned judge dismissed his claim
for a declaration that six farms situated at Batabi were his self-acquired
properties. His claims for damages for trespass and a perpetual injunction were
also dismissed.<o:p></o:p>The basic
claim was that the six farms were the self-acquired properties of the plaintiff
and it was grounded upon the following averments contained in paragraphs (3),
(4) and (5) of the statement of claim: <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">“(3) As
such citizen he [plaintiff] cultivated the farms described in the writ of
summons as far back as 1944, and has been re-cultivating the same regularly up
to July 1962. <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">(4)
Plaintiff was afterwards, that is to say, in 1946, made the Odikro of Batabi,
but was destooled in 1959. <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">(5) On
his destoolment these farms the subject-matter of dispute, were specifically
handed over to the plaintiff by the Akyeasehene and his linguist the persons
deputed by the Okyihene and his elders and the Oyoko stool elders to take
charge of the stool properties of Batabi.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In a
statement of defence, the defendants vehemently denied the averments referred
to above and pleaded that the six farms, were cultivated by the people of
Batabi for the plaintiff while he was occupying the stool. They pleaded further
that “before the plaintiff was enstooled as Odikro of Batabi he was not
resident at Batabi but was rather resident at Akinkansu where he was a boat
builder, and therefore he did not cultivate any farm or farms at Batabi before
his enstoolment in 1946.”<o:p></o:p>Upon
these pleadings the following issues were raised for the determination of the
trial court:<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">“(1) whether
or not the plaintiff cultivated the farms, the subject-matter of the dispute
while he was the occupant of the stool of Batabi. <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">(2)
Whether the said farms were handed over to the plaintiff on his destoolment
with the consent of the elders of the stool.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As the
claim was substantially for a declaration of title, it was undoubtedly the responsibility
of the plaintiff, on whom the onus lay, to satisfy the court by evidence that
the ownership thereof was vested in him. It has been held that the plaintiff
“must rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the
defendant’s case. If this onus is not discharged, the weakness of the
defendant’s case will not help him.” Per Webber C.J. in Kodilinye v. Odu.1 See also
Amodu Rufai v. Ricketts,2 and in the words of Harragin C.J. in Ayite Cobblah v.
Tettey Gbeke, “It is a recognised principle in land cases and it does not admit
of argument that the plaintiff, when claiming a declaration of title, must
succeed on the strength of his own case.”3<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In order
to discharge this onus, the plaintiff went into the witnessb</main>