CONNEY vs. BENTUM – WILLIAMS [1984]DLCA902

Date	1984-05-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1984]DLCA902

FRANCOIS JA

MENSA BOISON JA

ABBAN JA

P A ADJETEY (WITH HIM LARTEY AND GOKA) FOR THE APPELLANT.

C O NYANOR FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1984]DLCA902
																																						<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">

CONNEY <o:p></o:p>

{COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 2 GLR 301<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
21 MAY 1984<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">

P A ADJETEY (WITH HIM LARTEY AND GOKA) FOR THE
APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

C O NYANOR FOR THE RESPONDENT<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">

FRANCOIS, MENSA BOISON AND ABBAN JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ABBAN JA<o:p></o:p>Abban
J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. In 1957 the James Town Mantse, Nii
Kofi Akrasi II, granted a piece of land about 1.561 acres, situate and lying at
McCarthy Hill, Accra to George Frank Okpesisa Cleland. The grant was evidenced
in writing by a deed of conveyance dated 23 January 1957 and registered as
Lands Registry No 2776 1958, exhibit B. According to the plaintiff - respondent
(hereafter called the plaintiff) George F O Cleland by a deed of conveyance
dated 5 June 1964 and registered as Lands Registry No 1401/1972, exhibit C,
sold a portion of this land to one Emmanuel Kofi Danso. It is this portion
which is the subject matter of the present dispute. The said Emmanuel Kofi
Danso by a conveyance dated 19 December 1964 and registered as Lands Registry
No 179/1965, exhibit D, sold the disputed land to a Maxwell Elliot Badu who in
turn sold it to the plaintiff-respondent by a deed of conveyance dated 1 August
1969 and registered as Lands Registry No 2056/71, exhibit A.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
paragraphs (7) and (8) of the statement of claim the plaintiff pleaded 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">“(7) All
the purchasers of the said land took immediate possession of the land when they
purchased it. The plaintiff took immediate possession by fencing the land and
by constantly weeding it. He also built a kiosk to store his building
materials. (8) The defendant has from 30 April 1977 without any lawful
justification and without the consent of the plaintiff trespassed on the land
by excavating the land apparently to start building a foundation.”<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff’s case was that on the said 30 April 1977 when he saw the
defendant-appellant (hereafter called the defendant) and his workmen conducting
building operations on the land, he challenged them and reported the matter to
the Odorkor Police. The police visited the site and persuaded the defendant and
his workmen to stop the excavations. Later the parties met at the police
station in an attempt to settle the matter. The plaintiff produced his title
deeds but the defendant could not produce any. To avoid a possible breach of
the peace the police warned the defendant and his workmen off the land but they
did not take heed. The plaintiff therefore instituted the present action.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant’s case was that the late George Frank Okpesisa Cleland by his will
dated 26 November 1959 devised the disputed land to his three sons, namely
Willie, Charles and George Cleland. George F O Cleland died on 30 April 1966
and probate in respect of the said will was granted by the High Court, Accra on
13 December 1967 to the four named executors. According to the defendant the
three devisees sold the disputed land to him and he went into possession and
cleared the land. A year later he started constructing a building on the land.
The building had almost been completed when the plaintiff turned up to claim
ownership of the land. Apart from the will and its probate, exhibit 1, the
defendant did not tender any document or conveyance which was executed in his
favour by his said vendors.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>However,
it is clear that both parties traced their root of title to the late George F O
Cleland. But the defendant maintained, in his pleading and at the trial, that
the deed of conveyance dated 5 June 1964 from George F O Cleland to Emmanuel
Kofi Danso (exhibit C) was a forgery. Paragraph (2) of the statement of defence
states, “The defendant denies paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the plaintiff’s
statement of claim and states in answer to paragraph 4 that the alleged
conveyance was a forgery.” It is to be noted that no particulars of the said
forgery were given in the statement of defence and so at the summons for
direction’s stage, the plaintiff asked the court to order the defendant to file
particulars of the alleged forgery. The said order was made and on 2 December
1977 the defendant filed the required particulars alleging that the signature</main>