KWOFIE vs. KAKRABA [1966]DLHC1713

Date	1966-03-08
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLHC1713

ARCHER J.

T. D. BRODIE-MENDS FOR THE APPELLANT.

DR. DE GRAFFT-JOHNSON FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1966]DLHC1713
																																						<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" >KWOFIE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>KAKRABA <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 229<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 1966.<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">

T. D. BRODIE-MENDS FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

DR. DE GRAFFT-JOHNSON 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">

ARCHER J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff sued the defendant per her representative (in fact her husband)
claiming the sum of £G50 general damages for trespass and £G10 special damages
for removing the plaintiff’s four cement pillars on the plaintiff’s land at
Akotobinsin. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant has appealed to this court and has argued that the representative of
the plaintiff did not give evidence as a representative but testified as if he
was the claimant. Counsel relied on the case of Osei v. Asiedu-Offei1 where the
appellate court expressed the view that it was not in order when a
representative proceeded to give evidence as though he were the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Dr. de
Graft-Johnson for the plaintiff has agreed that the record of appeal does not
show that the representative gave evidence as a representative. This is evident
from the testimony of the representative who throughout gave the impression
that he was claiming damages for land of which he was the owner.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I think
the first ground of appeal is tenable as the cases seem to establish that evidence
given by the representative as if he were the principal is inadmissible: see
Yeboah v. Tse2 where Ollennu J. (as he then was) said:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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 only person who gave evidence for him [the plaintiff] was A. W.
Ankah, who gave his evidence as if he was the plaintiff himself giving evidence
. . . The practice has been condemned many times by the High Court and the West
African Court of Appeal but the Native Court does not seem to have taken any
notice of it.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>See also
Nyarko v. Abunyawah3 and Yeboah v. Bonko.4 In the second case, the High Court
held that the reception of inadmissible evidence given by a representative did
not render the proceedings before the native court null and void but such
inadmissible evidence thus received should be struck out and disregarded.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
brings me to the second ground of appeal. The local court magistrate
misconceived the meaning of registration of conveyances and gave an erroneous
decision thereon. It is obvious that the local court magistrate relied solely
on the deed of conveyance tendered in evidence by the plaintiff. In his
judgment the magistrate 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-shadow:yes">“The
plaintiff has been able to establish her claim and title to the plot by the
document exhibit B which has been stamped and registered in the Land Registry
at Accra . . . Before a land is registered, the registry must have had
particulars regarding the ownership, etc. of the land.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>