GODZI AND ANOTHER vs. LARYEA AND OTHERS [1992]DLCA4237

Date	1992-12-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1992]DLCA4237

LAMPTEY JA

KPEGAH JA

ADJABENG JA

HOEYI FOR THE APPELLANT.

SOMUAH ASAMOAH (FOR NELSON COFIE) FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1992]DLCA4237
																																						<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" >GODZI AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>LARYEA AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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">

[1993 - 4] 1 GBR 392 - 395 C A&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 10 DECEMBER 1992<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>HOEYI
FOR THE 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">

SOMUAH
ASAMOAH (FOR NELSON COFIE) FOR THE 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 1.0pt 0in">

LAMPTEY
JA, KPEGAH JA, ADJABENG JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>ADJABENG
JA. The appellant, Tawiah Tsuru Afote Godzi, and the respondents are the
children of Numo Tawiah Tsuru. Their mother is Madam Naa Mawuna. Numo Tawiah
Tsuru, now deceased, was a fisherman of Nungua. Because of the assistance his
said children gave him in his fishing venture, Numo Tawiah Tsuru decided to
build a house for them. And in order to make it exclusive to them, and to
ensure that his other children with another woman would not claim any interest
in this house, the said Numo Tawiah Tsuru decided that the documents on the
house should be made in the name of the appellant who is the eldest among these
children. After the death of the said deceased father, the rooms in the house
were shared among the respondents and the appellant who exercised acts of
ownership over their respective rooms. Later, however, the appellant, taking
advantage of the fact that the documents on the house were in his name, claimed
that the house was his own self-acquired property. He put his son, who was sued
as the second defendant, in charge of the house. The 2nd defendant then started
to collect the rent from the tenants in the house and refused to account
therefor. He also warned the respondents not to enter the house.<o:p></o:p>The
respondents, therefore, took action against the appellant and his said son at
the High Court, Accra. They claimed against the defendants jointly and
severally:<o:p></o:p>“(a) declaration that House No 26
South Klosal, Block 3, Nungua, was built by Numo Tawiah Tsuru.<o:p></o:p>(b) declaration that the said house
belongs to the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(c) statements of account [of rents]
collected by the defendants and distribution among the plaintiffs and 1st
defendant in equal shares.<o:p></o:p>(d) An injunction restraining the 2nd
defendant from collecting rents from the tenants in the house.”<o:p></o:p>The
defendants resisted the claim. The defence put up, as hinted earlier, is that
the house in dispute is the self-acquired property of the appellant.<o:p></o:p>The
evidence adduced by the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs-respondents and their witnesses,
however, supported their claim that the house was built by the late father of
the appellant and themselves, that the rooms therein were shared among them
after the death of their father, and that they exercised acts of ownership over
their respective rooms. The trial judge was impressed by the evidence of the
2nd and 3rd plaintiffs-respondents and, especially, their third and fourth
witnesses. PW3 described himself as a former tenant in the house in dispute and
said that the appellant told him that the house did not belong to him alone but
to him and his brothers. And that he (PW3) later paid the rent for his room to
the 1st plaintiff who was the owner of that room. PW4 was the carpenter who, as
admitted by the appellant, roofed the house in dispute. This witness said
emphatically that he was employed and paid by the late Numo Tawiah Tsuru, the
late father of the parties herein, and not by the appellant. The trial judge
accordingly entered judgment in favour of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs and made
the declarations they sought in reliefs (a) and (b) on the writ of summons.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant appealed to this court on the ground that the judgment was against
the weight of the evidence adduced before the trial court. Four additional
grounds of appeal were filed later. At the hearing of the appeal, counsel
withdrew, with leave, the appeal of the 2nd defendant-appellant. Counsel for
the 1st defendant-appellant then argued the original ground of appeal, and the
additional grounds 1 and 4. The additional grounds 1 and 4 state as follows:<o:p></o:p>“1. The trial judge erred in law by
entering judgment for the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs for reliefs (a) and (b) in
view of the evidence adduced at the trial.<o:p></o:p>4. The trial judge’s failure to
consider the evidence of the 1st defendant’s witnesses on the ground that they
were tenants of the 1st defendant was an error in law which occasioned
substantial miscarriage of justice to the 1st defendant.”<o:p></o:p>A
study of the few submissions of some substance made by the appellant’s counsel
shows clearly that counsel was only complaining about the handling by the trial
judge of the facts or the evidence in the case. For example, counsel submitted
that there was a conflict between the evidence of the 2nd plaintiff and that of
the 3rd plaintiff, and that this conflict should have been resolved in favour
of the appellant. Counsel also submitted that the appellant had proved that the
property in dispute is his self-acquired property and that the trial judge
should have accepted his version.<o:p></o:p>It
is trite learning that it is the trial judge who is competent to decide which
of the competing stories he or she would accept having regard to the evidence
adduced. And once a decision is taken on this by the trial judge and the facts
or the evidence supports such a decision, an appellate court cannot interfere
to disturb any such decision or finding; see Asibey III v Ayisi [1973] 1 GLR
102 CA; Nyame v Tarzan Transport [1973] 1 GLR 8, CA and Boateng v Boateng
[1987-88] 2 GLR 81, CA.<o:p></o:p>In
the instant case, there was ample evidence before the trial court to the effect
that the house in dispute was built by the late father of the appellant and the
plaintiffs, and not by the appellant as he claimed in his defence. There was
evidence also that it was the intention of the said late father of the parties
that this house shoul</main>