BADU vs. ADAMPA [1976]DLCA365

Date	1976-06-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLCA365

APALOO J.A

LASSEY J.A

ANIN J.A.

T. TOTOE FOR THE APPELLANT.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.

[1976]DLCA365
																																						<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" >BADU <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ADAMPA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 2 GLR 450<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:
28 JUNE 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">

T. TOTOE 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, LASSEY AND ANIN, JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.A.<o:p></o:p>Apaloo
J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. The facts of this case were agreed
and the only question which the court below was invited to decide was one of
law. It is one of the legal points commonly debated in the courts of this
country—namely, estoppel per rem judicatam. The learned judge decided that the
appellant was so estopped. The latter takes issue with this decision and
invites us to hold the contrary. We acceded to this invitation and held that
the plea of estoppel was wrongly invoked upon the conclusion of argument on 9
June 1976.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Now the
facts. There once lived at Mim in Brong-Ahafo, a man called Kwabena Agyapong.
He died nearly half a century ago. In his lifetime, he erected a compound house
at Mim. It was numbered D.S. 75. Upon Agyapong’s death, the house was succeeded
to by one Kodjo Kusi. At some point of time, the family removed him from this
position and the appellant entered into the inheritance of this property.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>About
1955, the appellant took ill and left for Nigeria for treatment. He left the
house in charge of his farm labourer called Mosi Panin. The latter had lived
with the appellant for 25 years and was a person in whom he reposed confidence.
Events proved that that confidence was misplaced. In 1964, the appellant
returned to Mim and found the respondent installed in the house. His caretaker
Mosi was nowhere to be found. Apparently, he returned to his home in Walatonga
in the Upper Volta. But before this, he sold the house to the respondent by a
deed dated 17 February 1961.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent put tenants in the house and exercised the rights of a legal owner
of the property. Upon the appellant’s return, he asserted his title to the
house and sought to eject the tenants. The respondent claimed ownership of the
property and relied on the sale. The scene was thus clearly set for litigation.
This followed shortly afterwards. On 13 January 1965 the appellant issued
against the respondent in the High Court, Sunyani, a writ in which he claimed:
“(a) Declaration of title to and/or recovery of possession of all that compound
house No. D.S. 75 situate lying and being at Mim; and (b) £G200 general damages
for trespass.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After a
trial lasting a number of days, the learned trial judge, Baidoo J. found for
the appellant. This was on 27 November 1967. The judge granted the reliefs
sought by the appellant in the following words:<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">“I
therefore give judgment for the plaintiff for the reliefs claimed viz: (a)
Declaration of title; (b) Recovery of possession of all that compound house No.
D.S. 75 situate, lying and being at Mim; and (c) ¢400 general damages for
trespass, which amount, in my opinion, is hardly adequate in view of the fact
that the defendant has been collecting rents from tenants he put into
occupation and the aggravated nature of the defendant’s repeated acts of trespass.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The judge
himself thought the damages sought was less than adequate and did not mince
words about it. But that was general damages and the success of the appellant
on the disputed issues of title and trespass entitled him to general damages in
any case. The quantification of that was for the judge’s discretion.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><s</main>