BOGOLO vs. ALIEBO [1983]DLHC2103

Date	1983-03-15
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1983]DLHC2103

ANSAH-TWUM J.

BRIGHT GAISIE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

JAMES MERCER FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1983]DLHC2103
																																						<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" >BOGOLO <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ALIEBO <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 1170<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:
15 MARCH 1983<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">

BRIGHT GAISIE FOR THE PLAINTIFF. <o:p></o:p>

JAMES MERCER 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">

ANSAH-TWUM J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANSAH-TWUM J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal against the judgment of the District Court Grade II, holden at
Half-Assini on 23 April 1981, in which the action was dismissed and judgment
was entered for the defendant in the suit in which the plaintiff claimed 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. The
plaintiff herein claims against the defendant to declare his title on that
piece or parcel of the plaintiff’s farmland situate, lying and being at a place
known and called `Avosuazo’ sharing boundaries on the north by the late Annor
Kundoh’, , 4. The plaintiff here seeks an interim injunction order against the
defendant herein, his assignees, and servants from entering into the said
farmland in dispute till final hearing and determination. 5. In default
plaintiff claims ¢1,000.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
of the case, as found by the trial magistrate, are sufficiently set out in the
judgment from which this appeal has been brought, and it may, therefore, not be
necessary to set the same out here again in extenso. I may, however, refer to
the relevant portions as and when I consider it necessary.<o:p></o:p>The
original grounds of appeal filed by the solicitor for the appellant (hereafter
called the plaintiff) dated 19 May 1981, 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">“3. (a) that
on the evidence the plaintiff should have been given judgment;<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">(b) That
the court below misconceived the issues at stake and erroneously dismissed the
claim of the plaintiff; <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">(c) That
the court received inadmissible evidence and acted thereon; and <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">(d) That
the judgment was perverse.”<o:p></o:p>Additional
grounds were filed on 12 May 1982 and they 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. Grave
irregularity affecting the merits of the case were committed by the trial
magistrate as specified hereunder: <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">(a) After
the visit to the locus in quo, the court did not re-assemble the witnesses who
participated<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">in the
locus in quo, did not say on oath what part they took in the recent locus in
quo; (b) the trial magistrate made use of evidence not appearing in a witness
evidence in court or in the inspection report; <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">(d) By
not giving their evidence of the part they played in the locus in quo on oath,
the appellant was denied the opportunity of testing the veracity of their
evidence in cross-examination.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>