AHIABLE ALIAS VIVOR AND OTHERS vs. DOSU AND OTHERS [1971]DLCA2071

Date	1971-04-05
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLCA2071

AZU CRABBE JA

LASSEY JA

JIAGGE JJ.A.

A. A. ACKUAKU FOR THE APPELLANTS.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1971]DLCA2071
																																						<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" >AHIABLE ALIAS VIVOR AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DOSU AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1971] 2 GLR 127<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:
5 APRIL 1971.<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. A.
ACKUAKU FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

NO
APPEARANCE BY OR 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">

AZU CRABBE, LASSEY AND JIAGGE JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE J.A.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the judgment of Sowah J. (as he then was) whereby he reversed
the decision of the magistrate sitting in the Dzodze Local Court, and entered judgment,
together with costs, for the respondents.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) instituted an action in
the Dzodze Local Court against the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the
defendants) claiming from the defendants jointly and severally the sum of £G82
10s. Od. (N¢165), being the value of cassava which the plaintiffs had planted
in their farm at Avetorforkli. The plaintiffs’ case was that the defendants
unlawfully trespassed upon the said farm and uprooted the cassava, which they
carried away and sold for their benefit. The plaintiffs contended that the
land, on which the farm in dispute is situated, had been the subject-matter of
a series of previous litigation, and in support of their claim they tendered in
evidence five judgments given in respect of the land. They further called two
witnesses who testified that they helped them to cultivate the cassava farm.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
defendant, on the other hand, claimed the cassava farm as his personal
property. He said in evidence 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">“The
cassava crops or plantation in question was cultivated by myself personally.
The said Avetorforkli piece of land, on which I planted the cassava, belonged
to my grandfather Gbidimi. The said Gbidimi was succeeded on the said piece of
land by his son Ege. Ege too was succeeded thereon by his sons Gbaga and Lawoe.
These two were also succeeded thereon by my grandfather Eha Dorpenyui. He was
succeeded thereon by my father Hunugbo Dosu. During my father’s occupation of
the land, a litigation arose thereabout between him and one Ladzekpo of Torgodo
and the case was won by my father. After the death of my father, his younger
brother Dzivenu succeeded him thereon and also occupied the land till he was
made a fetish priest. I succeeded my uncle Dzivenu on the land for about
fifteen years now; and it was part thereof I farmed the cassava on.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He said
that he was in occupation, and enjoying the use, of the farm when the first
plaintiff led six men to the land in dispute to assist him to clear a portion
of the land. In consequence of this trespass, he brought an action against the
first plaintiff in the Wheto Native Court B, but his action failed. He said
that during the course of his evidence, the first plaintiff alleged that he
derived his title from one Gabla Amegadze. The first defendant, therefore,
brought a second action against the said Gabla Amegadze for a declaration of
title to the land, and the first plaintiff joined the suit as co-defendant.
According to the first defendant, judgment was given in his favour, but the
court ordered that the first plaintiff should continue to occupy the piece of
land which, he claimed upon forged documents, the first defendant had granted
to him. Soon after this judgment, the first defendant said he heard rumours
that the first plaintiff was going to uproot his (first defendant’s) cassava on
the land. The first defendant, therefore, ordered the third, fourth and fifth
defendants to assist him to harvest the cassava. Whilst they were working on the
farm, they were all arrested upon a complaint made to the local authority
police by the first plaintiff. The first defendant was prosecuted, but was
discharged. He then brought a counter-charge against the plaintiff for
possessing forged documents. The first plaintiff was prosecuted and convicted,
but upon appeal the conviction was quashed. The first defendant tendered in
evidence two judgments, and called witnesses who either had farms that formed
boundary with his cassava farm, or who had assisted him to make the farm.<o:p></o:p>