SASU vs. AMUA-SEKYI [1987]DLCA806

Date	1987-12-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1987]DLCA806

ABBAN JA

OSEI-HWERE JA

WUAKU JA

E D KOM FOR THE APPELLANT.

K TABI AMPONSAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1987]DLCA806
																																						<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" >SASU<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>AMUA-SEKYI <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 2 GLR 221<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 22
December 1987<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">

E D KOM FOR THE APPELLANT. <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">

ABBAN, OSEI-HWERE AND WUAKU JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF WUAKU JA<o:p></o:p>Wuaku JA
delivered the first judgment at the invitation of Abban JA. This is an appeal
from a decision of his Honour M Atta-Fynn sitting as a circuit court judge at
James Town, Accra. He gave judgment in favour of the respondent (who shall
hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against the appellant (hereinafter
referred to as the defendant). The writ of summons was issued on 30 May 1974
and the judgment given on 10 April 1985. The case although a simple one, has a
long and a stormy history behind it.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In order
to understand the case and to apply the law, it is necessary that I should take
some time to state the relevant facts and other incidents that occurred during
the trial. During the course of the trial the writ of summons together with the
pleadings on both sides were amended. The plaintiff’s claim is for: (.a)
declaration of title; (b) recovery of possession; (c) perpetual injunction,
etc; and (d) ¢500 damages for trespass in respect of a piece of land. The
plaintiff derives his root of title through one Sophia Vanderpuye also known as
Sophia Addy. The conveyance from Sophia Vanderpuye to the plaintiff was dated 7
December 1966 and registered as No 2219/1966. The said Sophia Vanderpuye
previously had a grant from Nii Ayikai II, Akumajay Mantse of Accra. That deed
of conveyance was dated 9 December 1954 and was registered in 1959 as deed No
3358/1959. These documents were tendered in the proceedings as exhibits B and
D. The defendant too had his grant from Nii Ayikai Stephens, Dzasetse and head
of Akumajay stool of Accra. The, indenture is dated 20 March 1973 and was
registered in 1974 at the Deeds Registry as No 2604. The document was tendered
at the trial as exhibit C. During the trial the plaintiff conducted two
searches at the Deeds Registry. The first is concerned with the conveyance by
Nii Ayikai Stephens, Dzasetse, to the defendant. This search disclosed that
subsequent to Sophia Vanderpuye’s conveyance to the plaintiff the land was
affected by two transactions, first the conveyance to the defendant already
referred to as exhibit C and secondly, a conveyance dated 3 February 1975 by
the plaintiff to one Daniel Boateng. The search is marked as exhibit E in the
proceedings.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
second search marked as exhibit El covers the whole area conveyed to the
plaintiff by Sophia Vanderpuye as per exhibit D. The search shows that the land
was later affected by two transactions: (a) exhibit C, ie the conveyance to the
defendant, and (b) the conveyance to Daniel Boateng by the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Hearing
started before her Honour Judge Striggner-Scott on 11 February 1976. The
defendant made some allegations against her Honour to the then Chief Justice.
Judge Striggner-Scott considered the allegations grossly unfounded and in her
letter dated 18 January 1977 addressed to the then Chief Justice, she declined
to continue to hear the case. The said letter is contained in the record of
proceedings and because I found some of the contents of the letter at variance
with the defendant’s subsequent affidavits and the proceedings before her
Honour Judge Striggner-Scott, I called for the original docket. Contrary to
what the appeal record (of proceedings) appears to show, that the hearing
before Judge Striggner-Scott terminated with the cross-examination of the first
plaintiff witness by counsel for the defendant on 28 June 1976, the hearing
actually continued until 15 December 1976. The plaintiff had earlier closed his
case on 19 October 1976, the defendant had given evidence and was
cross-examined and the matter was finally adjourned to 18 January 1977.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Meanwhile
on 18 September 1974 an interim injunction was granted against the defendant
restraining him, his servants or agents from entering upon the land the subject
matter in dispute or carrying out any building operations thereon until the
final determination of the suit. And on 12 November 1975 it was ordered by the
court: “Let Andrew Osei &amp; Partners be appointed surveyors for the purpose
of demarcation.” The plan was drawn up; more will be said about the plan in the
course of this judgment.<o:p></o:p>Pursuant
to the defendant’s accusation against Judge Striggner-Scott and her refusal to
continue to hear the case, and by the direction from the then Chief Justice,</main>