WEREKO vs. AKYEAMPONG [1965]DLSC1861

Date	1965-05-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLSC1861

MILLS-ODOI JSC

OLLENNU JSC

SIRIBOE J.S.C.

C.F. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN SEN. FOR THE APPELLANT.

K. SACKEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1965]DLSC1861
																																						<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" >WEREKO <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>AKYEAMPONG <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 334<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:
3 MAY 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">

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

K. SACKEY 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">

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>Mills-Odoi
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. This is an appeal from the judgment
of the High Court, Kumasi, dated 11 April 1963, allowing an appeal from the
Kumasi South (Division 1) Local Court dated 19 May 1961, in proceedings for a
declaration of title to a piece or parcel of land situate at a place known as
“Tadieti” on Antoa stool land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff is the odikro of Aketebomo and claimed title to the land in dispute
under an alleged grant made to his ancestors by Nana Antoahene. The defendant
denied the plaintiff’s title to the land as alleged and stated that the
disputed land formed part of a vast area of land which was granted to his
(defendant’s) ancestors, Adu Amoyaw, by the Antoa stool long before the
plaintiff’s ancestors came to settle at Antoa. According to the defendant the
plaintiff has no land in the area in dispute.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After
taking evidence from the parties and their witnesses including Nana Sarkodie
Asenso III, the occupant of the Antoa stool through which stool each party
claimed his title, the local court magistrate inspected inspected the land in
dispute. Thereafter he delivered his judgment in favour of the plaintiff and
declared “the boundaries as shown by the plaintiff to be that official and
ancient boundary between the plaintiff and the defendant.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
judgment of the local court was delivered on 19 May 1961. The defendant being
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with it, and intending to appeal therefrom,
lodged in the High Court, a notice of his intention to appeal; this he did on 1
June 1961, within the statutory period of one month allowed for filing a motion
of intention to appeal, as provided by regulation 171 of the Local Courts
Procedure Regulations, 1959.1 He, however, failed to fulfil the statutory
conditions of appeal prescribed in regulation 173 of the aforesaid regulations
within the time limit allowed, and the High Court, acting under the power
vested in it by regulation 180 (1) thereof, struck out the appeal on 15
November 1961.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Labouring
under a misconception that his appeal was struck out for non-compliance with
regulation 171, namely, that he failed to lodge the notice of intention to
appeal in the High Court within the statutory period of one month, the
defendant filed in the High Court, on 25 July 1962, a motion asking for “leave
to appeal out of time.” However, he discontinued the motion by a notice of
discontinuance which was filed on 20 August 1962.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
same day as the notice of discontinuance was filed, the defendant filed another
motion in the High Court, this time asking for an extension of time within
which to fulfil the statutory conditions of his appeal, erroneously believing
that such an enlargement of time would regularise his appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
motion coming on for hearing on 1 October 1962, the plaintiff vehemently
opposed the defendant’s application, on the ground that his (defendant’s)
appeal had already been struck out. However, the learned judge of the High
Court, acting under the proviso to regulation 180 (1), granted the de</main>