AYIKUMA ADAMS, (SUBSTITUTED BY NANA OFUSU APPIAH) EMMANUEL ADJAH ANKRAH AND JAMES K. B. VANDERPUIJE vs. EMMANUEL TETTEH LOMOTEY AND NII ARYEE ANKRAH [2001]DLSC2362

AYIKUMA ADAMS, (SUBSTITUTED BY NANA OFUSU APPIAH) EMMANUEL ADJAH ANKRAH AND JAME... [2001]DLSC2362

Date	2001-07-25
Suit No.	CA NO. 14/2000
Citation No.	[2001]DLSC2362

AMPIAH (PRESIDING

KPEGAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

LAMPTEY JSC

ADZOE JC.

MR. JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE APPELLANTS

MR. CHARLES HAYIBOR FOR RESPONDENTS

[2001]DLSC2362
																																						<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" >AYIKUMA ADAMS, (SUBSTITUTED BY NANA OFUSU APPIAH) EMMANUEL
ADJAH ANKRAH AND JAMES K. B. VANDERPUIJE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>EMMANUEL TETTEH LOMOTEY AND NII ARYEE ANKRAH<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>CA NO.
14/2000<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: 25TH JULY,
2001.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>MR. JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE APPELLANTS<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" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
text-align:justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">&nbsp;AMPIAH (PRESIDING), KPEGAH JSC, ADJABENG JSC, LAMPTEY JSC, ADZOE JC. <o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>LAMPTEY, JSC: <o:p></o:p>The brief facts of the case on appeal
are that the plaintiff obtained a customary grant of the land in dispute from
the Manche Ankrah family sometime in 1962. He went into possession almost
immediately. Sometime in 1980 the defendant entered that land and started
putting up a wooden structure. The plaintiff promptly pulled down and destroyed
the wooden structure. A complaint of this fracas was made to the Ghana Police.
The Ghana Police did not pursue the complaint and did not investigate it. In
the opinion of the Ghana Police, the real issue in dispute is the ownership of
the plot of land therefore advised the rival parties to seek redress in a
civil&nbsp; court. None of the parties acted on the advice of the Ghana Police.<o:p></o:p>Sometime in 1981, the defendant
commenced building operations on the plot of land. The plaintiff again made a
complaint of trespass against the defendant. In the meantime the plaintiff sued
the defendant in the High Court Accra and claimed&nbsp; the reliefs stated in
the writ. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground that the plot of land
was originally allocated to his mother on the occasion 30 members of Manche
Ankrah family were allocated plots of land, including the plot in dispute, by
the Manche Ankrah family. He pleaded that his mother had remained in possession
of the plot since the said allocation. In due course, one Nii Ayi Ankrah
applied to be joined as co-defendant. He gave two main reasons to support his
application. The first was that the plot of land in dispute was part of Manche
Ankrah family land. The other reason was that the plot of land was customarily
granted to defendant's mother by Manche Ankrah family.<o:p></o:p>In a summons for directions filed by
the lawyer for plaintiff the real issue in dispute was whether the plot of land
was granted to the plaintiff or was allocated to the mother of the defendant. I
must draw attention to the fact that the plaintiff sought a declaration of
title and recovery of possession of the land in dispute the defendant and
co-defendant did not counterclaim for a declaration of title to the plot of
land in dispute.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff gave evidence and called
four witnesses including two members of Manche Ankrah family. The defendant
gave evidence but did not call any witness. The co-defendant did not give
evidence. The trial judge gave judgment for plaintiff and granted the reliefs
he sought. The defendant was aggrieved by the judgment and appealed to the
Court of Appeal. The appeal of the defendant was dismissed in a unanimous
judgment of the Court of Appeal. The defendant was dissatisfied and aggrieved
by the judgment of the Court of Appeal and appealed to this Court.<o:p></o:p>Counsel for defendant argued ground
(ii) first. He submitted that the Court of Appeal was wrong in giving judgment
for the plaintiff when "he did not establish that his alleged grant of one
of the 30 plots in 1962 by the same family preceded the grant of 30 plots to the
displaced 30 members for their resettlement at New Awudome." He contended
that on the evidence on record the plot in dispute, that is plot No.10, was
allocated to one Adotey Quarshi. He argued, however, that "there was no
basis for what PW3 implied that simply because Adotey Quarshi was No.10 on the
list of persons plot No.10 necessarily was allocated to him, and that plot No.5
also went to Lamley Lamptey because she is No.5 on the list". He conceded
that Lamley Lamptey's name&nbsp; appeared at No.5 but argued that the entry
"No.5 was a slight error". Dealing with the case of the plaintiff he
contended that on the evidence on record he was not one of the 30 persons to
whom the 30 plots of land was allocated. He argued that Exhibit E the
Conveyance executed in 1979 on which plaintiff relied as evidence of his title
to the land, did not in law pass any title to him because his grantors did not
have legal capacity to convey the plot to him. He stated that plaintiff failed
to establish and prove that the Manche Ankrah family made a customary grant of
the plot of land to him.<o:p></o:p>In reply counsel for the plaintiff
submitted that the defendant failed to estab</main>