KOJO KETEWA (PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT) vs. O.P BEYEDEN AND AFUA (DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS) [2011]DLCA7927

KOJO KETEWA (PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT) vs. O.P BEYEDEN AND AFUA (DEFENDANTS/APPELLANT... [2011]DLCA7927

Date	2011-10-27
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/193/10
Citation No.	[2011]DLCA7927

KANYOKE J.A (PRESIDING)

YAW-APPAU J.A

OFOE J.A

AUGUSTUS ANANE QUEBAH FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

K. AMPEM-DARKO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2011]DLCA7927
																																						<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" >KOJO KETEWA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>O.P BEYEDEN
AND AFUA<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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">

SUIT
NO. H1/193/10&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:
27TH OCTOBER,
2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AUGUSTUS
ANANE QUEBAH FOR DEFENDANT/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">

K.
AMPEM-DARKO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

KANYOKE J.A (PRESIDING), YAW-APPAU J.A, OFOE
J.A<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 0cm 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>OFOE,
J.A.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>This
appeal is from a trial circuit court. It is clear from the appeal records that
the pleadings that formed the basis of the trial are home brewed and the case
was also fought by the parties in court without legal counsel. There is no
indication the pleadings were filed and prepared with the input of legal
counsel, as would be expected in a circuit court. This notwithstanding, not
much was lost for at the close of the case, it was clear what the case of the
parties were and this was appreciated by the trial judge. <o:p></o:p>The
1st defendant entered into what they referred to as “abunu” tenancy
agreement with the plaintiff. At the time of filing the pleadings the agreement
had lasted for about 10 years. Whilst the plaintiff maintained that the plot of
land given under this agreement was 8 poles, the defendants said it was 4
poles. It would appear from the record of appeal that the parties used “pole”
and “acre” interchangeably. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff reduced
this land into a cocoa farm. The understanding I get after reading the record
of appeal is that the plaintiff would want the court to believe that after the
agreement had run for about 6 years he had to share the 8 poles equally with
the 1st defendant. This was the status quo until the 2nd
defendant, who is a daughter of the 1st defendant, entered his 4 poles
and demarcated a portion for herself claiming it was gifted to her and her siblings
by the 1st defendant. Since all local avenues for solving the
dispute failed he had to sue the defendants claiming:<o:p></o:p>“
an order of the court for recovery of his cocoa farm which the 1st
defendant has allowed 2nd defendant to demarcate a large portion for
herself” <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The defendants’ case was that the 1st
defendant had two different plots. The first plot of 4 poles the 1st
defendant inherited from the uncle, Kwame Donkor, and this was what he gave to
the plaintiff. The other plot 1st defendant inherited from his late
father, Akwasi Achiampong. This plot he cultivated himself and subsequently
gifted to the children, including 2nd defendant. This plot was not
part of what the 1st defendant gave to the plaintiff. It is this
portion defendants claim the plaintiff had trespassed upon. They also
counterclaimed for:<o:p></o:p>“
An order of the court for the recovery of all that piece of land/ cocoa farm at
“tintinmu” at Adaboi&nbsp; and is bounded by
the properties of Opanin Atta, Kwame Broni,( all deceased), Opanin Donkor and
Opanin Beyeden (i.e.1st defendant herein)”<o:p></o:p>From
the position taken by the parties it would have been preferable if both parties
had clearly pleaded and led evidence as to the exact area of land in dispute.
But as I said, the trial from beginning to the end did not have legal counsel. The
parties were however clear in their mind the area they were disputing and
therefore did not make that an issue. More importantly the identity of the land
in dispute was not made a ground of appeal for our consideration. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The pleadings disclose one main issue for
determination and this was rightly set out by the trial judge and that is
whether or not the piece of land given to the plaintiff by the 1st
defendant</main>