MOASA CO vs. SAARA [1999]DLCA339

Date	1999-06-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1999]DLCA339

WOOD JA

BROBBEY JA

BENIN JA

JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

J O DADEY FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

[1999]DLCA339
																																						<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">MOASA CO<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">SAARA<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 1 GLR 538<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.J O DADEY FOR
THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CORAM:WOOD, BROBBEY
AND BENIN JJA___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________JUDGMENT OF BENIN J A.<o:p></o:p>The issue before the trial court was, which of the parties herein
is the rightful lessee of a piece of land measuring 70 by 105 feet lying at New
Abossey Okai, Accra. Both parties sought declaration of title to the said land
so they assumed the burden of persuasion on the question of title.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff’s case as pleaded was that it acquired it from one
Nii Boye Maclean and remained in undisturbed possession since the acquisition.
It was only around February 1990 that the defendant and her agents began to
disturb the plaintiff’s enjoyment of this land. The defendant averred that she
obtained a grant of this land about 1965 from the late Nii Abossey Okai II,
Odorkor Mantse. A deed of conveyance executed in her favour got lost. She
obtained a building permit in 1971. In or about 1990 she approached the
incumbent Odorkor Mantse, Nii Boye Maclean II to execute another document in
her favour. She was made to pay some money. Subsequently, the stool secretary
demanded another 440,000 before the document would be prepared for her. When
she sent the money to the Mantse he refused to accept it saying he had sold it
to someone else. Hence the counterclaim.<o:p></o:p>At the end of the oral testimony and addresses, judgment was
entered in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff has appealed to this court on
the following grounds:<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">“(1) The judgment is against the weight of the evidence. <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">(2) The evidence of the plaintiff-appellant was not sufficiently
evaluated. <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">(3) The damages awarded were harsh and excessive. <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">(4) The learned trial judge misdirected herself in not adverting
her mind to the statutory provisions on disposal of stool lands in force in
1965 and 1988 when the two grants to the defendant and the plaintiff were
made.”<o:p></o:p>The identity of the land in dispute is agreed upon by both parties,
the different names given to it notwithstanding. It is clear from the record
that both parties claim title to the land through the same stool. It is also
certain that the plaintiff obtained his registered documents during the
pendency of this action. Hence, whereas the plaintiff sought declaration of
title and an order of perpetual injunction, the defendant went beyond these
reliefs and sought damages for trespass, recovery of possession and an order to
cancel the land certificate.<o:p></o:p>According to the plaintiff, before it took this land its
representative conducted a search which disclosed that the land was the subject
of a sale to a certain Lebanese. The then Akumajay Mantse, Nii Boye Maclean,
told him that the Lebanese was no longer in the country so he would sell the
land to him if he was interested. He paid for it and obtained a document which
he submitted to the Lands Department. This document as well as the search
report were tendered in evidence. These documents show the lease was backdated
to 1988 though it was prepared in 1991 when the actual transaction took place.<o:p></o:p>Under cross-examination the plaintiff’s representative admitted
that the plot is in a built-up area and that two sides thereof have been
fenced. He denied any knowledge of an earlier grant of the same land to the
defendant from the same stool. He said he did not consider it necessary to
inform the Land Title Registry about the defendant’s competing claim of
ownership of this land since he already possessed a 99-year lease agreement. He
denied meeting the defendant’s caretaker on the land, let alone beating him.<o:p></o:p>