AMATEI vs. HAMMOND AND ANOTHER [1979]DLHC1555

Date	1979-02-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1555

EDWARD WIREDU J.

T. A. TAGOE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

JOE REINDORF FOR THE DEFENDANT AND CO-DEFENDANT

[1979]DLHC1555
																																						<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" >AMATEI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>HAMMOND AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 300<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:
26
FEBRUARY 1979<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. A. TAGOE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

JOE REINDORF FOR THE DEFENDANT AND CO-DEFENDANT<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
the second trial of this case in this court. The first trial ended around the
middle of 1963 and an appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed and re-trial de
novo ordered.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
dispute is about a piece of building plot at Osu in the Osu Ashanti Blohum
Quarter, the property of the Osu Mankralo stool. The plaintiff on the
undisputed facts is a subject of the said stool. At the commencement of the
trial he was in physical possession of the land having constructed a building
on it. This building on the facts which I accept, was constructed at a time
when the defendant’s appeal against the first judgment of this court had been
struck out for want of prosecution when, he failed to turn up when the appeal
was called for hearing. The facts further show that later the appeal was
re-listed and the present trial is the result of the order of that appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant also claims to be a subject of the Osu Mankralo stool. Even though
issue was joined on this claim by the defendant I have refrained from making
any finding on it as its determination one way or other will, in my view, not
help in resolving the real controversy between the parties. The co-defendant on
the facts which I accept, is the Osu Mankralo and will be treated as such in
the course of this judgment.<o:p></o:p>Both the
plaintiff and the defendant claim title or better still their right to
occupation to the disputed land through the Osu mankralo stool. But whilst the
evidence brought by and on behalf of the plaintiff shows that his claim is
through a grant made to him by his second witness, one Nii Nortey Yeboah as
acting mankralo and some of the elders of the stool, the defendant’s claim is
through the mankralo himself (i.e. the co-defendant) and some of his elders.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We shall
therefore examine in detail the evidence brought in support of the parties to
find out whose claim is to be upheld by the court. In resolving this issue I
must not be taken to be unmindful of the burden which rests on a plaintiff for
a declaration of title to rely on the strength of his own case and not on any
weakness in the defendant’s case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff’s evidence, which was supported by his first witness, a Mr. Tagoe,
who on the available facts owns land abutting the disputed land, shows that
prior to obtaining the grant on which his claim is founded, he was farming on a
piece of land part of which is now in dispute and was in such occupation when
the area was later carved out into building plots as a result of a lay-out
carried out in the area. Mr. Tagoe himself testified that his own portion of the
land on which he has built was part of the land the plaintiff was farming on.
The plaintiff testified that when the area was carved out into building plots,
he obtained a grant of the disputed area from the Osu Mankralo stool, at that
time represented by Nii Nortey Yeboah as acting mankralo and the elders of the
stool. This grant according to the plaintiff was a gift from the stool. He
testified that after the grant he erected corner pillars at the four ends of
the plot and tendered exhibit A, a deed of gift, as the conveyance from the
stool to him. Nii Nortey Yeboah testified as the second witness for the
plaintiff. He confirmed the grant to the plaintiff and the execution of exhibit
A in his favour. His evidence shows that the Gyasetse and the Gyase people
installed him as acting mankralo when the co-defendant was customarily
destooled and has since that time been performing the customary functions of
the Mankralo. He testified that in that capacity he had been granting stool
lands to persons who come to see him and the elders of the stool. He claims to
have the custody of the stool and has been performing all customary rites
pertaining to the stool. Witness admitted that at the time he was acting,
destoolment charges were then pending in the Ga State Council against the
co-defendant. He admitted also that the charges were preferred by the Gyasetse
but denied that the case has been determined against the Gyasetse. He also
denied having supported the Gyasetse in the litigation and maintained that as
acting ma</main>