PENIANA AND OTHERS vs. AFFRAM [1966]DLSC1740

Date	1966-02-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLSC1740

SARKODEE - ADOO C.J

MILLS-ODOI JSC

BRUCE-LYLE J.S.C.

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN (WITH HIM TEKPE DOKU) FOR THE APPELLANTS.

E. D. KOM FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1966]DLSC1740
																																						<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" >PENIANA AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>AFFRAM <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 220<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:
28 FEBRUARY
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">

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN (WITH HIM TEKPE DOKU) FOR THE
APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

E. D. KOM 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., MILLS-ODOI AND BRUCE-LYLE
JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF BRUCE-LYLE J.S.C<o:p></o:p>Bruce-Lyle
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. This is all appeal from the
judgment of Simpson J. sitting in the Land Court, Ho, and dated 4 June 1960.
The plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) took an
action against the defendants appellants (hereinafter referred to as the
defendants) in the Local Court B of Peki State for a declaration of title to an
extensive area of land west of Tsito, £G50 damages for trespass, an order for
recovery of possession and perpetual injunction. This cause was later
transferred to the Land Court, Ho, where pleadings were ordered. The plaintiff
in his statement of claim based his claim on an outright sale of the land
described in the writ to his late father by one Bie (deceased). He averred that
the land had been in his father’s and in his own possession for about 62 years
and that seven years prior to the issue of the writ, the defendants, members of
the defendants’ families and their licensees had trespassed on the land and had
been making farms thereon.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants in their statement of defence denied any sale of the land to the
plaintiff’s father and averred that the land in dispute was the property of the
first and third defendants’ family and had been their family’s property from
time immemorial and pleaded estoppel by res judicata and by conduct. They also
pleaded possession from time immemorial. The defendants further counterclaimed
for a declaration of title, £G100 damages for trespass and an order for perpetual
injunction.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Evidence
was led by both parties in support of their respective claims and the learned
trial judge, in a well-considered judgment, dismissed the counterclaim of the
defendants and sustained the claim of the plaintiff. Against this judgment the
defendants have appealed to this court.<o:p></o:p>Not less
than fourteen grounds of appeal were filed but nine of them were canvassed and
they 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
learned judge was wrong in law in overlooking the important principle of law
that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own 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">(2) The
learned judge was wrong in accepting the evidence of the plaintiff’s title
because it was not proved. <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
plaintiff failed to prove the extent of the land alleged to have been sold to
his predecessor in title by Bie and Bansah. <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) There
was no proof of the sale being valid according to native custom of the area
alleged to have been purchased by the plaintiff’s predecessor in 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">(5) The
learned judge decided the case on the supposed weakness of the defendants’ case
instead of deciding the case on the strength of the plaintiff’s 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">(6) The
plaintiff herein failed satisfactorily to evidence a radical and possessory
title of the plaintiff to the area in dispute. <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">(7) If
there was any such boundary, it is an issue in a suit pending in the High
Court, Ho, undetermined. <o:p></o:p>