TAWIAH vs. ATTAFA [1967]DLHC1547

Date	1967-03-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1967]DLHC1547

KORANTENG-ADDOW J.

G. D. HAYFRON FOR THE APPELLANT.

RESPONDENT IN PERSON.

[1967]DLHC1547
																																						<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" >TAWIAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ATTAFA <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1967] GLR 121<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:
10 MARCH 1967<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">

G. D. HAYFRON FOR THE APPELLANT.<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">

KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff in this case brought an action against the defendant in the District
Magistrate Court Grade II at Dompim, claiming 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">“Plaintiff
claims from the defendant the sum of ¢174.63 to wit: (a) ¢120.00 being damages
for establishing unlawful claim to a land known and called ‘Abatafuo’ and deprived
the plaintiff from farming for livelihood of himself and family; and (b)
Defendant to refund the amount of expenses of ¢54.63 incurred by plaintiff
through his (defendant’s) unlawful action.”<o:p></o:p>He
elaborated on this in his evidence in court in the following terms:<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 defendant . . . took action against me in an arbitration at Dompim No. 1.
When the matter was decided at the arbitration the arbitrators gave judgment
against me . . . Defendant has since then about three (3) years ago failed to
give me notice to quit from the land and as such I find defendant is not the
owner of the land but only threatened and took this action against me and put
me into debt. I therefore took this action against the defendant to claim all
my expenses made or paid to him amounting to ¢54.63 and for ¢120.00 damages for
establishing unlawful claim against me.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The trial
magistrate upheld the contentions of the plaintiff and gave judgment for him.
It is from that judgment that this appeal was made.<o:p></o:p>The
fundamental facts in this matter which are not disputed are that the
defendant-appellant (herein to be referred to as the defendant) lodged a
complaint against the plaintiff-respondent (herein to be referred to as the
plaintiff) with the divisional chief of Dompim No. 1 in respect of a piece of
fallow land situate in the Dompim area known and called “Abatafuo.” On being
summoned by the divisional chief the plaintiff gave his consent to the matter
being gone into by the chief with some of his elders. After hearing the evidence
in the matter the panel inspected the land and made a finding in favour of the
defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff expressed his dissatisfaction with the decision and refused to pay
the expenses of the defendant which he was adjudged liable to pay. The
defendant subsequently brought an action against the plaintiff in the local
court for the said expenses. He succeeded and the plaintiff paid up.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff is a stranger in the Dompim area and his case at the arbitration was
that the parcel of land in dispute formed part of a larger area granted to him
by the relatives of his wife whom he describes as his “fathers-in-law”—two of
them. The names of his benefactors he gives as Kojo Ndru and Kojo Effie.
According to the plaintiff the piece of land was granted to him some ten years
before the dispute herein started. He cultivated part of the land into a cocoa
farm but three years before the arbitration he gave the remaining portion under
a customary tenancy to one Kwaw Hini. It was when Kwaw Hini started tilling
this portion of the land that the defendant laid claim to that portion.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Why he
was dissatisfied with the finding of the arbitrators, according to the
plaintiff, was that in his estimation the defendant brought an action against
the wrong person. He felt that as he disclosed to the defendant the source of
his ownership the defendant should have sued the “fathers-in-law” rather than
him. It may be noted that one of the “fathers-in-law,” namely, Kojo Effi</main>