EGYIR vs. HAYFRON [1982]DLHC910

Date	1982-07-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1982]DLHC910

TWUMASI J.

AMOWEE DAWSON FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

EBO BENTSI-ENCHILL FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1982]DLHC910
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

EGYIR <o:p></o:p>

{HIGH COURT, SEKONDI} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] GLR 510<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
29 July, 1982<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

AMOWEE DAWSON FOR THE PLAINTIFF. <o:p></o:p>

EBO BENTSI-ENCHILL FOR THE 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">

TWUMASI J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff’s claim is for a declaration of title to and recovery of possession
of all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Old Town,
Sekondi and is bounded on the south by the Methodist Church house and Lawyer
Mercer’s building, the east by Beach Crescent, the north by Beach Crescent and
George Grant’s house, and on the west by Fritz Eghbert’s house. The plaintiff
is the head of the Twokoa Anona family of Sekondi and sues in that
representative capacity. In his statement of claim the plaintiff avers that the
Twokoa Anona family owns all that piece of land described by him. He avers that
his late uncle by name Azariah, his immediate predecessor whom he succeeded as
head of the Twokoa Anona family, granted to the defendant some time ago a
licence for temporary use of the land but the defendant now asserts ownership
of the land and refuses to give up possession thus provoking this action.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant in her statement of defence avers that the land described by the
plaintiff in his statement of claim is her own property by right of gift from
her father, the late Peter Awoonor Renner. There is therefore no dispute about
the identity of the land and the plaintiff is happily relieved of the all too
often formidable task on a plaintiff to prove clearly the identity of the land
in a claim for a declaration of title.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In an
action for a declaration of title where there is a specific or general denial
of his title a plaintiff cannot succeed without proving his root of title: see
Anto v Mensah (1957) 3 WALR 218 at 222, CA per Ollennu J (as he then was). Thus
where a plaintiff derives his title from his predecessor he cannot succeed
unless he proves the title of his predecessor. As Ollennu J (as he then was)
said in Anto v Monsah (1957) 3 WALR 1 at 2:<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">“To
succeed in an action for declaration of title it is necessary to show what the
origin or root of title is. In this country it is derivable in various
ways—either by grant from a stool, or where by virtue of being a subject of a
stool one acquired original possession by cultivation of forest land, or by
sale from a proved owner . . .”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Each
party to the instant suit claimed to have derived title from some predecessors
or predecessor as the case might be, so it was incumbent upon them to prove
their respective titles bearing in mind the principle of law unshakably settled
by a spate of cases, that the plaintiff in an action for a declaration of title
to land succeeds on the strength of his own case: see Codjoe v Kwatchey (1935)
2 WACA 371 at 374; Darko v Agyakwa (1943) 9 WACA 163; Cobblah v Gbeke (1947) 12
WACA 294 and Donkor v Asare [1960] GLR 187. It follows that where a plaintiff
fails to prove his title to land satisfactorily his case ought to be dismissed
without considering the defence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Let us
now take a critical view of the plaintiff’s case. First he narrated a
traditional history which he said was imparted to him by his late uncle, Kwaku
Azariah, at a time when the latter was critically ill. The historical account
was that between the years 1850 and 1860 the plaintiff’s ancestors moved from Cape
Coast and settled on the land part of which is in dispute and established a
branch of the Methodist Church in Sekondi. These ancestors granted to the
Methodist Church all that piece of land comprised in the Methodist Mission,
Sekondi. The ancestors further granted permission to the church to develop the
vacant portion of the land directly in front of the Methodist Mission whenever
the need arose but that that permission has not been utilised. It is the latter
land which is in dispute. The late Azariah also told the plaintiff th</main>