NKAEGUO vs. KUNADU [1974]DLHC2298

Date	1974-07-02
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1974]DLHC2298

EDWARD WIREDU J.

T. D. BRODIE-MENDS FOR THE APPELLANT.

RESPONDENT IN PERSON.

[1974]DLHC2298
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">NKAEGUO <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">KUNADU<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST]<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;[1974] 2 GLR 150<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:
2 JULY 1974.<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">

T. D.
BRODIE-MENDS 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">

EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the decision of the District Court Grade II, Dunkwa, dated 4
August 1972. That decision dismissed a trespass action by the
plaintiff-appellant (hereafter referred to as the plaintiff) against the defendant-respondent
(hereafter referred to as the defendant) and upheld a counterclaim by the
defendant who was awarded ¢100 damages against the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A brief
history of this case reveals that the parties to this suit are adjoining
boundary owners. They both farm at a place called Nyamebekyere II on the Buabin
stool land. The plaintiff acquired her portion of the land in her own right
whilst the defendant has succeeded to her portion through her deceased mother.
The evidence shows that both the plaintiff and the deceased mother of the
defendant acquired their respective lands during the reign of Nana Bugyei an
ex-Buabinhene. The controversy between them is about the exact location of
their boundary line and even though the plaintiff’s claim is worded in the form
of a declaration of title the real issue between the parties as revealed by the
evidence adduced is the usual boundary dispute between two adjoining boundary
owners. The plaintiff did not put the whole of her land into dispute and
neither did the defendant. It is clear from the record of proceedings that the
trial magistrate very well appreciated this, and after collecting evidence from
the parties and their witnesses and admitting a surveyed plan showing the
respective farms of the parties in relation to the disputed area, he visited
the locus in quo and acquainted himself with the situation on the land itself.
His findings show that he was impressed with the evidence and the features
testified to by the defendant as forming the boundary between her mother’s land
and that of the plaintiff after visiting the locus in quo. He therefore
expressed his satisfaction with the case brought by and on behalf of the
defendant and preferred same as against that brought by and on behalf of the
plaintiff. He therefore dismissed the plaintiff’s claim and entered judgment
for the defendant on her counterclaim.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
from this decision that the present appeal has been brought to this court
originally on one main ground, namely, that the judgment of the district court
grade II is against the weight of evidence. On 21 May 1974, five more
additional grounds were filed on behalf of the plaintiff and these read 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)
Whereas the plaintiff gave evidence as to the boundaries of her land and
established her ownership of the area in dispute as required by law, the
defendant who counterclaimed, and was therefore as much a plaintiff as the
appellant herein, did not even give evidence of the boundaries of her land, nor
could she explain the presence of the plaintiff’s old cocoa farm in the area
marked B on the plan even though the defendant claimed ownership to the whole
area marked green on the plan containing the three farms A, B and C. <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
magistrate’s evaluation of the evidence of the plaintiff and her witness was
perverse, as contrasted with that of the defendant and her only witness (the
defendant’s own sister). <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
magistrate erred in law in placing the onus of proof solely on the plaintiff,
whereas, as a defendant who had counterclaimed, the defendant-respondent had,
in law, the same onus of proof imposed on her.<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) The
magistrate erred in law when he he</main>