ANNOBIL vs. OBOSU [1990]DLCA2063

Date	1990-03-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1990]DLCA2063

TAYLOR J.S.C

LAMPTEY JA

ESSIEM J.A.

B. J. DA ROCHA (WITH HIM MENSAH BONSU) FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

I. QUANSAH (WITH HIM BAIDEN) FOR THE DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

[1990]DLCA2063
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">ANNOBIL<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">OBOSU<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1991] 1 GLR 383<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 30 MARCH
1990<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>B. J. DA ROCHA (WITH HIM MENSAH BONSU) FOR THE
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.<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">

I. QUANSAH (WITH HIM BAIDEN) FOR THE DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. <o:p></o:p>

TAYLOR J.S.C, LAMPTEY AND ESSIEM JJ.A. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal against a well considered judgment delivered by
Osei-Hwere J. (as he then was) at the High Court, Cape Coast on 11 May 1983.
The said judgment is however so exhaustive and meticulous in its consideration
of the facts and so unexceptionable as regards the conclusion the judge came
to, after applying the applicable law, that I am inclined to adopt his
reasoning without much ado and to dismiss this appeal against his judgment
accordingly. The appeal however was argued on behalf of the ostensible
appellant by a very senior advocate of the bar and I therefore consider it
courteous to highlight the legal consideration which makes this appeal a
hopeless venture.<o:p></o:p>I do not consider it necessary to go into the facts that emerged
at the trial in any great detail. That task was admirably performed by the
trial High Court judge, Osei-Hwere J. (as he then was). The case is a simple
one of rival claims to parcels of land, particularised in a plan ordered by the
High Court. The plaintiff at the High Court, who is alleged to be the appellant
herein, took out a writ of summons on 9 June 1975 and claimed, inter alia,
against the defendants who are the respondents herein: “A declaration of title
to all that piece or parcel of land called Twaakukrom lying and being in the
Ajumako Traditional Area.”<o:p></o:p>The relief here as claimed would seem to be defective for the
reasons given by Ollennu J.S.C. delivering the judgment of the erstwhile
Supreme Court in Anane v. Donkor, Kwarteng v. Donkor (Consolidated) [1965]
G.L.R. 188 at 192, S.C. when he said:<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">“Where a court grants declaration of title to land . . . the land
the subject of that declaration should be clearly identified so that an order
of possession can be executed without difficulty. . . If the boundaries of such
land are not clearly established, a judgment or order of the court will be in
vain. Again, a judgment for declaration of title to land should operate as res
judicata to prevent the parties relitigating the same issues in respect of the
identical subject-matter, but it cannot so operate unless the subject-matter
thereof is clearly identified. For these reasons a claim for declaration of
title... must always fail if the plaintiff falls to establish positively the
identity of the land to which he claims title with the land the subject-matter
of the suit.”<o:p></o:p>The vacillating efforts which the plaintiff made to correct this
defect demonstrates his lack of confidence in the precise area of land he
claims and is surely a circumstance that cannot be overlooked in examining his
claim.<o:p></o:p>The trial commenced on 8 March 1978 before Osei-Hwere J. (as he
then was) after an abortive commencement before Wiredu J (as he then was). On
29 April 1979, the plaintiff closed his case. ‘The defendant, Nana Kweku Obosu,
commenced his evidence on 5 July 1979 and completed his evidence on 13 December
1979. In the course of the defendant’s evidence, the plaintiff on 31 July 1979
amended his writ of summons to read, inter alia, 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">“The plaintiff’s claim against the defendants is for:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo5;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A declaration of title to all that piece of land called
‘Twaakukrom and Twaaku lands’ situate, lying and being in the Ajumako
Traditional Area more particularly described on exhibit CE 1 tendered in
evidence in this suit on 8 March 1978 and edged red and is bounded by (a) Nana
Ntsie’s land; (b) Kofi Atta’s land; (c) Obomah’s land; (d) Kwao Donkor’s land;
(e) Nana Entsie’s land; (f) Opanyin Abakah’s land; (g) Kwao Otu’s land; (h)
Abaka’s land; (i) Atsie Basi’s land; (j) Sarson’s land; (k) Kwaku Duah’s land;
(o) Opanyin Ahyirew’s land; (p) Opanyin Nuhu’s land; (q) Kwame Djan’s land; (r)
Adabo’s land; and (s) Kwesi Depeh’s land.”<o:p></o:p>