PRACTICE NOTE: BONAPARTE vs. WALAKATAKA II [1972]DLSC2409

Date	1972-04-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1972]DLSC2409

APALOO J.S.C

AMISSAH JA

SOWAH J.A.

M. K. AYISI FOR THE APPELLANT.

AKO ADJEI FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1972]DLSC2409
																																						<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" >PRACTICE NOTE: BONAPARTE <o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;WALAKATAKA II <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;[1972]
2 GLR 83<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
10 APRIL 1972.<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">

M. K. AYISI FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

AKO ADJEI 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">

APALOO J.S.C., AMISSAH AND SOWAH JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Apaloo
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. [His lordship reviewed the evidence
in the case after the Court of Appeal had inspected the land, the
subject-matter of the action for trespass and continued:] We think therefore
that we ought to differ from the conclusion of the learned trial judge. But
before doing so, we have given consideration to the caveat issued in such cases
as Keteku v. Dzogbenuku (1956) 1 W.A.L.R. 134 and Dza v. Komla (1956) 1
W.A.L.R. 145; and in particular, Boakye v. Baabu (1956) 2 W.A.L R. 183 where
the West African Court of Appeal warned against allowing the impressions,
gained on a visit to the locus in quo, to replace the conclusions properly
drawn from the evidence and the demeanour of the witnesses who gave it. But on
the special facts of this case, we cannot accept that the demeanour of the
interested witnesses, who testified in this case, can be a certain guide to the
truth. In the conflict of evidence which ensued between the rival parties, the
only neutral evidence and the safest indicator of the truth is the real and
colourless evidence produced at the inspection.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
connexion, we agree with the statement in the second holding of the headnote in
Anto v. Mensah (1957) 3 W.A.L.R. 218 at p. 220, C.A. that:<o:p></o:p>“Although
a Native Court should not allow their impressions, gathered on a visit to the
locus in quo in a dispute concerning land, to become a substitute for the
evidence they have heard in court, yet this is not to say that they should not
attach to those impressions whatever weight they think appropriate in the
circumstances of the case. Where plans are not tendered in evidence. a visit to
the locus in quo will frequently form an effective and acceptable substitute
for such plans and in these circumstances the impressions gathered by the
members of the Native Court can be treated on the same lines as impressions
gathered by them from the demeanour of witnesses in court.”<o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>