ELIZABETH LANDY AMPAH vs. SABANG & EDWARD QUARTEY [2004]DLCA6992

Date	2004-01-16
Suit No.	SUIT NO. 157/2000
Citation No.	[2004]DLCA6992

OMARI SASU JA [PRESIDING]

ANINAKWAH JA

MRS. ABBAN JA

CHRISTOPHER ARCHER—FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT

T. N. WARD-BREW—FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

[2004]DLCA6992
																																						<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" >ELIZABETH LANDY AMPAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<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">SABANG &amp; EDWARD QUARTEY<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"><o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/
APPELLANTS)<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">

SUIT
NO. 157/2000&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; DATE: 16TH JANUARY, 2004<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p>CHRISTOPHER ARCHER—FOR
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. <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">

T.
N. WARD-BREW—FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp; <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">

OMARI
SASU JA [PRESIDING], ANINAKWAH JA, MRS. ABBAN JA<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">

</div>OMARI-SASU<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff — Respondent herein sued the defendant(s) in the court below and
claimed the following reliefs:—<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1. Declaration of title <o:p></o:p>2.
Recovery of possession<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;3. Damages for trespass and <o:p></o:p>4.
Perpetual injunction—all in respect of a plot of land the plaintiff had
acquired from the Sempe Stool in Accra <o:p></o:p>In
time the Co-defendant also in an amended Defence and counter-claim prayed for
the reliefs of Declaration of title, General Damages for trespass and perpetual
injunction against the Plaintiff/Respondent. In her pleadings the
Plaintiff-Respondent raised the plea of estoppel against the
Defendant-Appellant. <o:p></o:p>After
evidence had been received from the Plaintiff/Respondent we noticed that the
learned trial Judge entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent for
the sole reason that he felt he should uphold the plea of estoppel raised and
for that reason the learned trial Judge concluded:— at p. 193 of the Record.
Thus: <o:p></o:p>"I find that the Judgment in Suit
No. LS 27/77 entitled "Elizabeth Landy Ampah "Vrs. Nawoe Wayoe"
and tendered in court as Exhibit "B" is of full binding sicfoce
"as the defendants are privies of Nawoe Wayoe and that the parties in this
action are "estopped from re-litigating this action".<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The merits of the present action were not
considered by the trial learned Judge who concluded his judgment at p. 193 of
the record by saying:— "<o:p></o:p>I
find that it will be merely academic to consider and resolve the merits of the
"evidence produced in the action.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"Accordingly I enter Judgment for
Plaintiff against the defendants for the reliefs "endorsed in the writ of
summon ie. Declaration of title (2) Recovery of Possession (3)
"¢300,000.00 damages for trespass and Perpetual Injunction. I asses
plaintiff's costs at ¢200,000.00 against the Defendants and I dismiss all the
reliefs sought by the Co-defendant in his counter-claim."<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;We propose to make two observations on the
above decision and the record as a whole. The first is that the said Exhibit B
upon which the plea of estoppel and the decision of the trial court are based
was never made part of the record and after persistent demands the court below
never furnished us with the said Exhibit. We therefore have the handicap of
being called upon to decide on an important process which we have not had the
benefit of seeing. This is a dangerous expedition and we decline to make a
decision of either upholding the judgment or allowing the appeal. <o:p></o:p>The
second observation is that the record shows clearly that each of the parties
sued for the reliefs of Declarations of title, damages for trespass and
Perpetual Injunction against the other. <o:p></o:p>From
the pleadings, it is not in dispute that each of the parties had their grants
from the same grantor—to wit the Sempe Stool of Accra and that it is
Plaintiff/Respondent who went into possession of her grant and that the parties
were more or less neighbours.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;With this as the background we would have
thought that the learned trial Judge would have deemed it necessary to conduct
the trial with the aid of a composite plan on which had been superimposed the
respective plans of the parties; and he would have ca</main>