OWUSU vs. TABIRI AND ANOTHER [1987]DLHC796

Date	1987-06-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1987]DLHC796

MENSAH J.

ANSU-GYEABOUR FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

OKOFO-DARTEH FOR THE DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS

[1987]DLHC796
																																						<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" >OWUSU <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>TABIRI AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 1 GLR 287<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
23 JUNE 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">

ANSU-GYEABOUR FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

OKOFO-DARTEH FOR THE DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MENSAH J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal against the decision or ruling of the District Court, Grade II,
Dormaa-Ahenkro. Originally the plaintiff appellant (hereafter referred to as
the plaintiff) filed a writ before the said trial court claiming, inter alia, a
piece of land from the defendants respondents (hereafter referred to as the
defendants). However before the substantive claim could be heard, the defendant
filed a motion alleging that the matter has been decided at an arbitration and
therefore the plaintiff was estopped from instituting the aforesaid suit
against them. The trial court heard evidence about the alleged arbitration and
gave its ruling, holding that there has been valid arbitration and dismissed
the substantive suit. It is this ruling which the plaintiff, being aggrieved,
has appealed against.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the plaintiff filed two main supplementary grounds of appeal and limited
himself to the said two supplementary grounds of appeal, namely:<o:p></o:p>(a) The
trial magistrate failed to discharge his judicial function when he failed to
assign cogent reasons for the conclusion he came to.<o:p></o:p>(b) That
there were serious contradictions in the case put forward by the defendants and
these contradictions did no credit to the defendants case and should have been
resolved in the plaintiff’s favour.<o:p></o:p>Arguing
ground (a), counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the trial magistrate
failed to assign reasons for his conclusion and failed to resolve the primary
facts and further failed to evaluate the evidence adduced before him.<o:p></o:p>

Counsel
referred to the record of proceedings and submitted that there was enough
evidence to show that both the first and second defendant witnesses
participated in the alleged or attempted settlement and that the plaintiff
mentioned the first defendant witness (Yaw Yeboah) as one of the elders who
participated in the alleged settlement. Counsel said it was therefore wrong for
the trial court to have made a finding that the first and second defendant
witnesses did not participate. Counsel referred to the case of Quaye v. Mariamu
[1961] 1 G.L.R. 93, S.C. and submitted that since the trial court failed to
resolve the primary facts and arrived at a wrong conclusion, the ruling should
be set aside.<o:p></o:p>Touching
on ground (b) of the supplementary grounds of appeal, counsel submitted that
there were serious contradictions in the case of the defendants and these
should have been resolved in favour of the plaintiff. Counsel referred to the
record of proceedings and argued that while the defendants testified that the
alleged arbitration was presided over by Nana K. Adom Ababio, other witnesses
for the defendants said the said chief Nana K. Adom Ababio did not participate
in the alleged arbitration.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
further argued that there were further serious conflicts in the evidence of the
defendants’ witnesses regarding the order in which the parties and their
witnesses gave their evidence before the alleged arbitration, and that since
the conflicts were material to the issues before the trial court, the trial
court should have resolved the issues in favour of the defendants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
conclusion counsel for the plaintiff submitted that since the trial court
failed to make any primary finding of fact and made conclusions without
assigning reasons, and further having regard to the material conflicts in the
evidence of the defendants and their witnesses, which conflicts touch the
issues joined between the parties, this appellate court should set aside the
ruling of the trial court.<o:p></o:p>