DOVE vs. WUTA-OFEI [1966]DLSC1682

Date	1966-04-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLSC1682

SARKODEE-ADOO C.J

APALOO JSC

SIRIBOE J.S.C.

B. J. DA ROCHA FOR THE APPELLANT.

WILLIAM OFORI-ATTA FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1966]DLSC1682
																																						<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" >DOVE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>WUTA-OFEI <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 299<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:
18 APRIL 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">

B. J. DA ROCHA FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

WILLIAM OFORI-ATTA 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">

SARKODEE-ADOO C.J., APALOO AND SIRIBOE
JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SIRIBOE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the judgment of Akainyah J. (as he then was) delivered on 10
December 1962, in favour of the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to
as plaintiff). The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant-appellant
(hereinafter referred to as the defendant) is 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">“(1) An
order of the court under the Land Development (Protection of Purchasers) Act,
1960 (Act 2), setting aside the order for possession made by the Land Court,
Accra, (van Lare J.) dated 2 September 1955, and confirmed by the judgment of
the West African Court of Appeal dated 29 November 1956, and by the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council dated 24 July 1961, in favour of the defendant
herein against the plaintiff herein in respect of the property described in the
schedule hereunder. <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) A
consequential order declaring the plaintiff the owner of the said property.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
schedule referred to states 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">“All that
piece or parcel of land together with the buildings thereon situate lying and
being at Christiansborg, Accra, and bounded on the north by land belonging to
Eva Buckman (sometimes erroneously reputed to belong to J. B. Danquah)
measuring 205 feet more or less, on the east by Osu stool land measuring 150
feet more or less and on the west by Cantonments Road and measuring 160 feet
more or less.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As the
wording of the present claim indicates, the plaintiff lost to the defendant,
then the plaintiff, in a previous action involving the same land the
subject-matter herein. In that case the trial court, presided over by van Lare
J. (as he then was), gave judgment for the defendant on her claims for <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) Declaration of title, <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) Recovery of possession and <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) Perpetual injunction.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On appeal
to the West African Court of Appeal, however, the judgment obtained for the declaration
of title was set aside, leaving that for the recovery of possession and
injunction, against which the plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed to the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
setting aside of the declaration of title, I should like to observe, is not of
material consequence to the present proceedings, as by the nature or effect of
the aforementioned judgments, it was made perfe</main>