HAYFRON vs. EGYIR [1985]DLCA922

Date	1985-06-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1985]DLCA922

APALOO CJ

EDWARD WIREDU JA

OSEI-HWERE JA

JOE REINDORF (WITH HIM BENTSI-ENCHILL) FOR THE APPELLANT.

KWAME TETTEH (HOLDING EBOW DAWSON’S BRIEF) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1985]DLCA922
																																						<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">

HAYFRON <o:p></o:p>

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

[1984-86] 1 GLR 682<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
24 JUNE 1985<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">

JOE REINDORF (WITH HIM BENTSI-ENCHILL) FOR THE
APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

KWAME TETTEH (HOLDING EBOW DAWSON’S BRIEF) 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">

APALOO CJ, EDWARD WIREDU AND OSEI-HWERE JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO CJ.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant, who was born in or about 1908, lives in Sekondi. She is the daughter
of the late Peter Awoonor Renner who died in 1938. The deceased was a
barrister. The appellant is, in a sense, fortunate to have been the daughter of
a lawyer. This is because she was able to meet the case raised against her by
written records dating back to 1900. Her father’s knowledge of conveyancing
stood her in goodstead.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
evidence placed before the judge below, shows that on 17 August 1900 one Kuow
Djonfia, head chief of Dutch Sekondi, sold and conveyed to one Hendrick Vroom a
piece of land measuring 600 feet by 200 feet in Sekondi. The land was fully
described in a deed of indenture which was executed to evidence the sale. On 22
February 1910 the said Vroom, for his part, sold and conveyed the identical
land to the appellant’s father for the consideration named in the deed. These
two deeds of indenture were duly stamped and registered in the Lands
Department. Copies of both documents were tendered in evidence. The originals
were apparently not available and the copies produced in evidence were supplied
from the official records of the Lands Department.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There is
no question about their genuineness or authenticity. Indeed, the appellant’s
father’s document was tendered by the respondent-curious as it seems! That
document recited the 1900 conveyance. During the hearing of the suit, that
document was apparently not available. On the hearing of the appeal, we granted
leave to the appellant to tender a cetified copy authenticated by the Lands
Department. This new evidence could not have caused any surprise to the
respondent because he himself tendered, without objection, the 1910 document in
which the earlier conveyance of 1900 was recited.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
evidence shows that the appellant’s mother was anxious that the late Lawyer
Awoonor Renner provide some patrimony for his daughter. So at her request,
Renner made a gift of a portion of the land he bought from Vroom to the
appellant. This gift was, as to be expected, evidenced by a deed. The statutory
declaration of Mrs Mercer, the appellant’s mother made in June 1977, nearly two
years before the writ was issued out in this case, shows that she handed the
deed to her brother one Frank Krakue for stamping and registration. This was
not done before the latter’s death and the deed could not be traced. The deed
was not delivered to the appellant herself because she was apparently a minor.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It seems
clear that Mrs Mercer showed the appellant the land and put her in possession.
The evidence is not altogether precise when in point of time this was. What is
clear, however, is that the appellant entered into her patrimony and enjoyed
and otherwise exercised acts of ownership on the land openly and practically
undisturbed for at least 40 years before this litigation was launched. She did
not only clearly mark the confines of her land with corner pillars, but erected
wooden structures on it. These she let out.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>She
rented a portion of it to fishmongers. She herself utilised the land by making
a vegetable garden and planted sugar-cane on a portion of it. She also planted
coconut, palm trees and banana on it. A few years before the writ issued in
this suit, she fenced the entire land with bamboo. I need hardly say that the
evidence of the appellant’s </main>