DARKO vs. AFFRIM AND OTHERS [1966]DLSC1674

Date	1966-01-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLSC1674

OLLENNU JSC

AKAINYAH JSC

BRUCE-LYLE J.S.C.

A. W. ACQUAAH (E. D. KOM WITH HIM) FOR THE APPELLANT.

B. J. DA ROCHA FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1966]DLSC1674
																																						<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" >DARKO<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>AFFRIM AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 36<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:
17 JANUARY 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">

A. W. ACQUAAH (E. D. KOM WITH HIM) FOR THE
APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

B. J. DA ROCHA 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">

OLLENNU, AKAINYAH AND BRUCE-LYLE
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 Siriboe J., as he then was, wherein he dismissed a claim by the appellant,
hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, to declaration of title, damages for trespass
to and recovery of possession of two pieces or parcels of land situate at
Awotrodum, Ahamansu in the Buem-Krachi District.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff pleaded that a company of 29 persons including his father contributed
money to buy a large area of land and apportioned it among themselves according
to their respective contributions; that the two portions of land claimed by him
together formed the share given to his father, and the same have devolved upon
him as successor, his father having died intestate. He pleaded further that he
had been dispossessed of the land by the defendants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defence denied the plaintiff’s averments that the large area of land was
purchased by a company of 29 persons, or that the plaintiff’s father was
entitled to two portions or any portion of the large area by right of purchase
or contribution. They denied that the plaintiff was entitled to any portion of
land or that he had wrongfully been dispossessed of any portion of the land to
which he is lawfully entitled. The co-defendant further pleaded that in so far
as the claim is in respect of a farm occupied by him, he is a purchaser of the
lands from M. L. Darko who originally acquired the larger area, and that the
plaintiff has never been in possession of those farms.<o:p></o:p>

Evidence
was led by both sides to show that the large area of land of which the two
pieces claimed by the plaintiff form portions, was purchased by one M. L. Darko
an uncle of the plaintiff. But while the plaintiff alleged that M. L. Darko
made the purchase as a representative of a company of 29 including his, the
plaintiff’s father, the defence maintained that M. L. Darko made the purchase
in his individual and not in any representative capacity. And although it was
not pleaded, the defence led evidence which was quite conclusive that the
plaintiff’s father made a cocoa farm on a portion of the land, that that
portion was a gift made to him by his brother the said M. L. Darko, and that
the plaintiff’s father subsequently, that is in 1942, sold that farm to one
Olaga, and thereupon removed to Golokwati and there lived and cultivated yams
and other food crops until his death in 1946.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The trial
judge held, among other things, that the plaintiff failed to prove the purchase
of the land as pleaded by him, and also failed to prove the identity of the two
pieces of land or either of them which he claims in the suit.<o:p></o:p>Only four
of the seven grounds of appeal filed were argued with any seriousness, these
are:<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) The
trial judge erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s claim that the land in dispute
cannot be ascertained with certainty.<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) The
trial judge failed miserably to consider the doctrine of purchase in the name
of another, let alone apply it to the facts of the case.<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) The
trial judge contrary to Order 19, r. 4 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 1954,1</main>