EBUSUAPANYIN JACOB vs. NANA KWAME TOOSI II [2012]DLCA3614

Date	2012-11-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/21/2012
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA3614

S.MARFUL-SAU J.A (PRESIDING)

C.J.HONYENUGA J.A

D. ADJEI J.A

MR. H.H. HAYFORD ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT PRESENT

MR. MICHAEL ARTHUR DADZIE ESQ FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT PRESENT

[2012]DLCA3614
																																						<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 JACOB<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA KWAME TOOSI II<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL, CAPE
COAST]<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. H1/21/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 15TH
NOVEMBER, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. H.H. HAYFORD ESQ. FOR
THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT PRESENT<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">

MR.
MICHAEL ARTHUR DADZIE ESQ FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT PRESENT<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

S.MARFUL-SAU,
J.A (PRESIDING) C.J.HONYENUGA, J.A AND DENNIS D. ADJEI, J.A<o:p></o:p>

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

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>DENNIS
ADJEI, J.A:<o:p></o:p>On 2nd June, 2008 the defendant/appellant
herein filed an appeal against the decision of the High Court, Cape Coast
delivered on 5th May, 2008 in which he lost. For the purposes of
this appeal the defendant/appellant would be referred to as the Defendant and
the plaintiff/respondent as Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>The brief facts of this case were that the plaintiff
was claiming ownership to Kusuku Bonsam lands which forms part of Eburbonko
Stool lands.&nbsp; The plaintiff did not
describe the identity of the land but rather attached to the writ of summons,
two maps (site plans) which sought to delineate the disputed land.&nbsp; The trial High Court Judge gave judgment in
favour of the plaintiff for all the reliefs endorsed on his writ of summons.<o:p></o:p>The defendant aggrieved by the judgment of the trial
High Court appealed to this court to reverse the judgment on several reasons,
particularly that the judgment was wrong because the identity of the subject
matter of the litigation (the land) remains unknown and it sins against the
time tested decisions which are to the effect that a party who fails to give a
vivid description of his/her land to make it identifiable cannot succeed in
claims for declaration of title and an order for perpetual injunction. See the
case of Kwabena vs. Atuahene [1981] GLR 136.<o:p></o:p>The defendant filed 13 grounds of appeal and they are
as follows:<o:p></o:p>“a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
The trial Judge erred by holding in his judgment that the plaintiff discharged
the duty imposed on him by law to prove the identity of the disputed land by
the tendering of the plans used in the suit entitled KOW EYIE odikro of
Eburbonko vs. Kofi Dadzie VII Odikro of Wioma when the defendant/appellant and
his privies were not parties to the said suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>b.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The trial Judge by holding in his
judgment that the plaintiff discharged the burden of proof imposed on him by
law to prove the identity of the disputed land wrongly relied on the plan
attached to the plaintiff’s statement of claim which had been falsified by the
plaintiff by insertion therein “Akofurdo and Kusuku Bonsam” instead of the
original two (2) plans forming part of the judgment and proceedings in the suit
entitled EKOW EYIE VS. KOFI DADZIE VII tendered in evidence by the
plaintiff/Respondent which plans did not contain “Akofordo and Kusuku-Bonsam
lands.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Trial Judge shouls have dismissed
the plaintiff’s case on grounds that the plaintiff failed to prove the identity
of the land in dispute.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>d.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The trial Judge arrived at the wrong
conclusion in his judgment to the effect that there is only one ‘Ameyaw’ as the
trial Judge should not have limited himself to the plans (albeit the wrong one)
but should have considered the totality of the proceedings in the Ekow Eyie vs.
Kofi Dadzie case which would have revealed that Kow Eyie the plaintiff in that
said case gave evidence to the effect that Ebubonko lands shared com</main>