AYIKUMA ADAMS, (SUBSTITUTED BY NANA OFUSU APPIAH) EMMANUEL ADJAH ANKRAH AND JAMES K. B. VANDERPUIJE vs. EMMANUEL TETTEH LOMOTEY AND NII ARYEE ANKRAH [2001]DLSC6380

AYIKUMA ADAMS, (SUBSTITUTED BY NANA OFUSU APPIAH) EMMANUEL ADJAH ANKRAH AND JAME... [2001]DLSC6380

Date	2001-07-25
Suit No.	CA NO. 14/2000
Citation No.	[2001]DLSC6380

AMPIAH (PRESIDING)

KPEGAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

LAMPTEY JSC

ADZOE JC

MR. JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE APPELLANTS

MR. CHARLES HAYIBOR FOR RESPONDENTS

[2001]DLSC6380
																																						<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, 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">

CA NO. 14/2000&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 25TH
JULY, 2001<o:p></o:p>

MR.
CHARLES HAYIBOR FOR RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 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&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
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. <o:p></o:p>The
complaint against the judgment of the Court of Appeal as formulated under
ground (ii) on the notice of appeal must be carefully and critically examined.
The gravamen of the complaint was expressed as follows: <o:p></o:p>"........the Court of Appeal was
wrong in giving judgment in favour of 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 the 30 plots to the displaced 30 members for their
settlement at New Awudome" <o:p></o:p>I
have critically read and examined the judgment of the Court of Appeal. For the
avoidance of doubt and purpose of clarity I reproduce the passage from the
judgment of Afreh JA:<o:p></o:p>...I
have no doubt that the respondent (plaintiff</main>