EBUSUAPANYIN KWEKU ADJEI (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT) vs. NANA KUNTU ABABIO II (DEFENDANT/APPELLANT) [2005]DLCA7445

EBUSUAPANYIN KWEKU ADJEI (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT) vs. NANA KUNTU ABABIO II (DEFEND... [2005]DLCA7445

Date	2005-12-06
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. HI/232/200
Citation No.	[2005]DLCA7445

GBADEGBE JA [PRESIDING]

ASARE KORANG JA

OSEI JA

IVAN QUANSAH FOR APPELLANT.

PETER ABABIO FOR RESPONDENT.

[2005]DLCA7445
																																						<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" >EBUSUAPANYIN
KWEKU ADJEI<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0">NANA KUNTU ABABIO II<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO. HI/232/200&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 17TH JUNE,2005<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>IVAN
QUANSAH FOR APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

&nbsp;PETER ABABIO FOR RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

GBADEGBE
JA [PRESIDING], ASARE KORANG JA, OSEI 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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>ASARE KORANG, JA <o:p></o:p>This is an appeal from a decision of the
High Court that upheld the claim of the plaintiff to whom I shall for
convenience in this proceedings refer as the respondent and to the defendants
in the court below similarly refer as the appellants. In the decision the
subject matter of these proceedings the learned trial judge in a considered
opinion delivered at the end of a full scale trial upheld the claim of the
respondent. It appears from the judgment on which this appeal turns that she
took the view that there was a previous decision which the parties before her
fought in the same rights and in relation to the same subject matter; therefore
the action was caught by the principle of res judicata.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;In the ground of the appeal argued before us
it is unfortunate that the learned counsel in the matter did not in my thinking
appreciate that from the evidence placed before the court below and the
cross-examination of the various deponents the action actually raised for the
determination of the court the extent of area covered by the previous action
between the parties. In my opinion the action was plainly a contest between
parties who sought from the court the determination of their exact boundaries.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;It is in this respect to be observed that in
this appeal the respondents went to great lengths to assert that nowhere in the
reliefs sought by the respondents in the court below were they making a claim
for a declaration of ownership of any particular configuration of land, that
matter, according to the respondents having already been determined in the
previous action. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is clear that the whole tenor and
content of the respondents plaint was an action for a declaration of title to
land dressed in the feudal garb of a claim for the payment of tolls for at page
54 of the record of appeal in an amended statement of claim filed on 15th
November 1998 and strangely headed<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;"AMENDED AMENDED AMENDED STATEMENT OF
CLAIM,"<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;the respondents altered the reliefs claimed by
them to include the following: <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>"(e)
An order of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants and their
agents/assigns or any other person or persons lawfully claiming through them
from having anything to do with the land. <o:p></o:p>