JOHN KWADWO BOBIE vs. 21ST CENTURY CONS. LTD. & 7 ORS [2013]DLCA8094

Date	2013-03-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO.H1/07/13
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA8094

ADJEI J.A. (PRESIDING)

ACKAH-YENSU J.A.

BENSON.J

MR. ALEX FOCHAM ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

DADE AMYADI ESQQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2013]DLCA8094
																																						<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>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>21ST CENTURY CONS. LTD. &amp; 7 ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO.H1/07/13&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

DADE
AMYADI ESQQ. 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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

ADJEI
J.A. (PRESIDING), ACKAH-YENSU J.A., BENSON.J<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">

<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 1.0pt 0cm">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</main>