RICHARD ADU BONSRA (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT) vs. MR. HAMMOND & 2 ORS. (DEFENDANT/APPELLANT) [2008]DLCA7502

RICHARD ADU BONSRA (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT) vs. MR. HAMMOND & 2 ORS. (DEFENDANT/AP... [2008]DLCA7502

Date	2008-12-11
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL H1/92/07
Citation No.	[2008]DLCA7502

MRS. AKOTO-BAMFO J.A.

KANYOKE J.A.

DUOSE J.A.

MR. HEWARD MILLS FOR THE DEFTS’/APPELLANT’S

MR. F.K. YEBOAH FOR THE PLT/RESPONDENTS’

[2008]DLCA7502
																																						<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" >RICHARD ADU
BONSRA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MR. HAMMOND
&amp; 2 ORS.<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CIVIL APPEAL H1/92/07&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: 11TH DECEMBER, 2008<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
HEWARD MILLS FOR THE DEFTS’/APPELLANT’S <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">

MR. F.K. YEBOAH FOR THE PLT/RESPONDENTS’<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>MRS.
AKOTO-BAMFO J.A., KANYOKE J.A., DUOSE J.A.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MRS.
AKOTO BAMFO J.A. <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants for these reliefs:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1. Declaration of title to the piece of land
particularly described in both the indorsement and accompanying statement of
claim.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;2. Damages for trespass and Perpetual
Injunction. <o:p></o:p>The
gist of the plaintiff’s case was that the land, the subject matter of the
dispute was gifted to him by his deceased father who acquired same from the
Obosumase Atifi Stool in 1944. He immediately went into possession; put a
caretaker on the land who planted some mango trees. He left the shores of Ghana
and subsequently returned only to find that his brother had ejected the
caretaker and sold a portion of the land to Peter Hammond (1st deft’s father).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;He made a report to the Mankrado which
culminated in arbitration proceedings to which Peter Hammond submitted. An
award was made in his favour and Hammond was ordered to quit the land. <o:p></o:p>Even
though Hammond did quit, his son the 1st defendant and others refused to quit.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The defendants resisted the plaintiff’s
action. Their case was that the land in dispute was the property of Peter
Hammond (father of 1st deft) who purchased same from Bernard, Richard and
Felicia Adu Bonsra. Subsequently, Bernard purportedly sold the same land to
other persons; he was arrested; after police investigations, the title deeds
were executed by the Adu Bonsra family and same was duly registered. They
additionally contended that the action was statute barred.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On the 14th of June 2002, the High Court
entered Judgment for the Plaintiff and granted him all the reliefs endorsed on
the writ of Summons.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Being naturally dissatisfied, the defendants
appealed against the decision on these grounds—:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1. The Judgment was against the weight of
evidence<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;2. The learned trial Judge misdirected herself
on what constitutes a valid arbitration.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;3. The trial Judge erred in decreeing title in
the respondent based on a letter. <o:p></o:p>4.
The learned trial Judge misdirected herself on what constitutes a customary
grant of land. <o:p></o:p>5.
The trial Judge erred in presuming fraud and visiting same on the Appellant.<o:p></o:p>Hereafter,
the defendants and plaintiffs shall simply be referred to as appellants and
respondents respectively. <o:p></o:p>Learned
Counsel for the appellants submitted in his argument on the 1st leg of the
appeal that the Judgment was against the weight of the evidence adduced.
According to him, the learned Judge over relied on the arbitration held at the
Mankrado’s palace which in his view fell short of a proper arbitration.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It was contented that the letters could not
vest title in the respondents and therefore the learned Judge failed to draw
proper inferences resulting in the wrong conclusions and that if she had
properly analysed the issues raised, the court would have arrived at a
different conclusion.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In answer, learned Counsel for the respondents
submitted that aside from the statement that the learned Judge failed in her
duty, no attempt was made at demonstrating where she went wrong and therefore
the assertion that the Judgment was against the weight of evidence had no
basis. <o:p></o:p>An
appeal is by way of i.e. rehearing Rule 8(1) of C.I. 19 and indeed in Tuakwa
Vrs. Bosom 2001-2002 SC SCR 61, the Supreme Court emphasiz</main>