JOHN KWADWO BOBIE vs. 21ST CENTURY CONS. LTD. & 7 ORS [2013]DLCA3629

Date	2013-03-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/07/2013
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA3629

ADJEI J.A. (PRESIDING)

ACKAH-YENSU J.A.

BENSON.J

MR. ALEX FOCHAM ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

DADE AMYADI ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2013]DLCA3629
																																						<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" >JOHN KWADWO BOBIE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>21ST CENTURY
CONS. LTD. &amp; 7 ORS<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. H1/07/2013&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 21ST
MARCH, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. ALEX FOCHAM ESQ. FOR
THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT<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">

DADE
AMYADI ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT<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">

ADJEI,
J.A. (PRESIDING) ACKAH-YENSU, J.A. AND BENSON.J<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 27th March, 2012 the High Court Cape
Coast in its judgment dismissed all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff on his
writ of summons.&nbsp; The court further
granted an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering
with the portions of the land at Gomoa Buduburam which have been developed by
the plaintiff pending the determination of ownership of same between the
plaintiff and the defendants.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff/appellant (hereafter called the
plaintiff) filed an appeal against the said judgment on 2nd April,
2012.&nbsp; The plaintiff filed five (5)
grounds of appeal against the judgment.&nbsp;
On 16th April, 2012, the defendants/respondents (hereafter
called the defendants) who were also dissatisfied with the judgment of the
trial High Court also filed Notice of Cross Appeal.<o:p></o:p>The term Notice of Cross Appeal is alien to the Court
of Appeal Rules C. I. 19. Rule 15 of C.I. 19 makes provision for the filing of Notice
of Variation of Judgment.&nbsp; The
appropriate terminology known to C. I. 19 is Notice of Variation of Judgment
and not Notice of Cross Appeal.&nbsp; Rule
15(1) of C.I. 19 provides that it is not necessary that a respondent files a
notice by way of cross petition but the respondent who intends to contend that
the decision of the trial court should be varied shall within one month after
service of notice of appeal on him or her may file notice for variation of
judgment as set out in Form 7 of C. I. 19.&nbsp;
The Supreme Court Rules C. I. 16 Rule 9 thereof has rather made
provision for cross appeal.&nbsp; Even though
the defendants headed the process filed by them as Notice of Cross Appeal
instead of Notice of Variation of judgment, I will cure the defect with Rule 63
of C.I 19 as it will not occasion any miscarriage of justice. The defendants
also set down five (5) grounds of appeal.<o:p></o:p>The facts of this appeal do not admit any
ambiguity.&nbsp; There was a dispute between
the 1st defendant herein and Adade Memorial Farms Limited before the
High Court Cape Coast.&nbsp; The 1st
defendant herein who was the plaintiff therein was claiming against the
defendant inter alia, for a declaration of title to a parcel of land at Gomoa
Buduburam covering an area of 102 acres.&nbsp;
Before the institution of the suit before the High Court Cape Coast, one
Nana Abor Yamoah II and 5 other chiefs had instituted an action against the 6th
and the 1st defendants in this appeal in the High Court Cape Coast
with Suit No. E1/25/04.&nbsp; The writ was
filed on 20th February, 2004 but the suit was abandoned.<o:p></o:p>There was another suit involving one Samuel Cabbae Kaye
and the 1st defendant herein.&nbsp;
The suit was instituted by the plaintiff therein in 2009.&nbsp; The plaintiff applied for an injunction to
restrain the defendants herein (1st defendant herein) from
interfering with the disputed property but the court dismissed it as
unmeritorious.&nbsp; All the three (3) cases I
have talked about border on the disputed property.<o:p></o:p>The defendants in this suit presented documents
affecting their interest in the aforesaid disputed property for
registration.&nbsp; The 7th
defendant (Lands Commission) refused to register it.&nbsp; The defendants therefore filed an application
for judicial review in the nature of mandamus to compel the 7th
defendant herein to register their interest in the land.&nbsp; The application was successfully granted and
when the 7th defendant failed to comply with it, an application for
committal for contempt was brought against it.<o:p></o:p>The 7th defendant therefore deleted the
various interests that other people had registered in the land including that
of the plaintiff herein.&nbsp; The plaintiff
became dissatisfied with the 7th defendant for deleting his
registered interest in the land without notice to him.&nbsp; The plaintiff therefore instituted this action
to ventilate his right.<o:p></o:p>Looking at the decision delivered by the trial High Court,
the Notice of appeal and the Notice of Variation of judgment filed by the
plaintiff and the defendant respectively, I must reproduce the reliefs sought
by the plaintiff to ascertain as to whether or not the judgment was grounded on
the reliefs sought.&nbsp; The endo</main>