NUAMAH vs. ADUSEI AND OTHERS [1988]DLHC650

Date	1988-10-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLHC650

MENSAH J.

J. W. PREMPEH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

KOFI OPPONG FOR THE DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

[1988]DLHC650
																																						<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" >NUAMAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ADUSEI AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SUNYANI] <o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 2 GLR 457<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:
14
OCTOBER 1988<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">

J. W. PREMPEH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

KOFI OPPONG 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 lodged by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment of the
District Court Grade 1, Wenchi delivered on 13 September 1985. The main grounds
of the appeal are that the judgment is against the weight of evidence and
secondly, that the trial magistrate erred in law.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff-appellant (hereafter called the plaintiff) at the court below, asked
for declaration of title to and recovery of fallow land lying and being at a
place commonly known and called Nwaano on Wenchi stool land and having
boundaries with the properties of Nana Asamoah Tuakodom, Kofi Amoah (deceased)
and succeeded by Danso, Opanin Attakora Kwame, Nana Kofi Nkyifie and Kojo
Abrefa (deceased). The plaintiff further claimed ¢2,000 special damages
representing the value of ten palm trees unlawfully felled by the
defendants-respondents (hereafter called the defendants), general damages and
finally perpetual injunction against the defendants as well as their agents,
servants and workmen.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After
hearing evidence from both parties who were represented by counsel, the court
dismissed the claim of the plaintiff and gave judgment in favour of the
defendants. It is this judgment which the plaintiff, being aggrieved at, has
appealed against on the grounds stated above.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Arguing
the appeal for the plaintiff, counsel referred to ground 1 of the grounds of
appeal and submitted that the first plaintiff witness and the second plaintiff
witness (an 80-year old farmer) and the third plaintiff witness (a 70-year old
woman) all confirmed the testimony of the plaintiff that the land in dispute is
at a place called and known as Nwaano and that the said land was originally
acquired by the plaintiff’s grandfather called Kwame Gyan when he (the
plaintiff) was a boy (then aged about ten) and through series of customary
succession, he, the plaintiff, came to inherit the land in question.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
referred to the evidence of the second plaintiff witness, (the 80-year old
farmer) who testified that he has a land at Nwaano and that he is a boundary
owner to the disputed land. He further referred to the evidence of the 70-year
old woman (the third plaintiff witness) who also said she had a farm at the
said Nwaano and that the said land was acquired by her grandparents, Kwame Gyan
and Kofi Ameyaw. Counsel submitted therefore that the totality of evidence by
the plaintiff and his three witnesses indicated that the disputed land was at
Nwaano and that the plaintiff was and is the owner of the said land and
therefore on the preponderance of probabilities, the trial court had erred in
law when it gave judgment for the defendants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the plaintiff also submitted that the evidence of the co-defendant (who
gave evidence for himself and the first and second defendants) showed that
there was a land called and known as Nwaano and there was another land called
Kromese and that both lands were separate and different. Counsel therefore
submitted that in law, since the co-defendant had admitted that the two lands
were different and the claim was in respect of the Nwaano land, it was wrong
for the trial court to have rejected the claim of the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
went on further to add that the same co-defendant admitted that the first
defendant sold the palm trees on Nwaano land to the second defendant and that
th</main>