AYAHUASCA ADAMS AND 2 OTHERS vs. EMMANUEL TETTEH LOMOTEY AND ANOTHER [2001]DLSC6139

Date	2001-07-25
Suit No.	CA NO. 14/2000
Citation No.	[2001]DLSC6139

AMPIAH (PRESIDING) KPEGAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

LAMPTEY JSC

ADZOE JC.

MR. JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE APPELLANTS

MR. CHARLES HAYIBOR FOR RESPONDENTS

[2001]DLSC6139
																																						<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" >AYAHUASCA ADAMS AND 2 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>EMMANUEL TETTEH LOMOTEY AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/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">

[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<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">

MR. JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE APPELLANTS 
MR. CHARLES HAYIBOR FOR 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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">AMPIAH (PRESIDING) KPEGAH JSC, ADJABENG JSC, LAMPTEY JSC, ADZOE JC.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</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="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:
none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>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 court. None of the parties acted on the
advice of the Ghana Police. 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 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 land. The other reason was that the plot of land was customarily granted
to defendant's mother by Manche Ankrah family. 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. 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. 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 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. In reply counsel for the
plaintiff submitted that the defendant failed to establish and prove by
evidence the identity of the land he claimed, the date and time of his grant
and the nature of his grant. He argued that the documentary evidence, in
particular, Exhibits C l and E related to plot No.5 and not to plot No.10 which
was allocated to one Adotey Quarshi. He contended that the documents put in
evidence by the defendant through the surveyor appointed by the court did not
identify the plot of land claimed by the defendant. The complaint against the
judgment of th</main>