AIDOO vs. ADJEI AND OTHERS [1976]DLCA345

Date	1976-02-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLCA345

APALOO J.A

ANIN J.A

FRANCOIS J.A.

SACKEYFIO FOR THE APPELLANT.

BRODIE-MENDS FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1976]DLCA345
																																						<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" >AIDOO<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ADJEI AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 431<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:
24 FEBRUARY 1976.<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">

SACKEYFIO 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">

APALOO, ANIN AND FRANCOIS JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
dispute in this case relates to a piece of land at Jukwa measuring 200 ft. by
150 ft. and abutting the Cape Coast-Jukwa road. It contains what was described
in the site plan as a “residence” and two zinc sheds. By a conveyance dated 12
October 1960, and made between the Central Property Co., Ltd. then in
liquidation and acting by a Mr. Frederick William Wilson therein described as
the liquidator and J. J. Aidoo, the appellant, this plot together with the
structures on it were conveyed to the latter “for an estate in possession free
from incumbrances Unto and To the Use of the Purchaser his heirs, successors
according to native law personal representatives and assigns for ever.” The
evidence shows that before the sale to the appellant, his vendors and their
predecessors-in-title have been on the land for nearly half a century. The time
was variously put at 1911 and 1912. The structures on the land were erected by
the vendors.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Some time
in November 1972, the first respondent entered onto a portion of the land and
erected on it a “chop bar.” When the appellant took issue with him for doing
this, he said he was authorised to do this by the second respondent. He is the
Omanhene of the Denkyira Traditional Area. The appellant did not accept that
the second respondent was entitled to permit the entry on to the land which he
claimed as his own. He therefore sued the first respondent and sought against
him declaration of title and damages for trespass.<o:p></o:p>As was to
be expected, the Omanhene of Denkyira acting jointly with the Jukwamuhene
sought to join the action. They claimed that the first respondent’s entry on
the land and his erection of the structure complained of, were done with their
prior consent. They laid title in the land in themselves and disputed the
appellant’s right to the reliefs which he sought against the first respondent.
Their application was acceded to. On being joined, they filed a joint defence
in which they again asserted their ownership. They could not deny that the
appellant’s vendors were at one time in possession of the land and being an
alien company could only have come onto the land by reason of some agreement
with the owners. The second and third respondents pleaded that:<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">&nbsp;“The co-defendants further aver that there was
no formal agreement entered into between the said Central Property Co., Ltd.
and the co-defendants’ predecessors, but it was a mere grant made to the said
company with the understanding that whenever the company ceased to function the
land would revert to the landlords.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>These
respondents then disclaimed any knowledge of the sale to the appellant and
claimed that such sale, if made, was done “clandestinely without the knowledge
and consent of the principal owners.” They accordingly denied its validity.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant’s title having been disputed, he came under an obligation to prove
it. He found no difficulty in proving the sale between himself and his vendors.
He produced the deed of conveyance. This was regularly executed and duly
registered in the Deeds Registry. But it was not enough for him to prove a sale
between himself and the Central Property Co., Ltd. He had to show that his
vendors were entitled to pass title in the plot to him.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>To
discharge this burden, he called the properties manager of the U.A.C., a Mr. G.
M. Mensah. The appellant’s vendors are said to be a subsidiary of the U.A.C. He
admitted the sale to the appellant. He also conceded that the land at one time
belonged to the stool of Jukwa. But he said that stool made a transfer of the
freehold in</main>