PARIN NAA FUSEINI ABUBAKAR vs. NHADAT ISLAMIC SCHOOL AND THE PROPRIETOR [2013]DLCA8129

Date	2013-11-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/38/2010
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA8129

ADJEI J.A

LOVELACE-JOHNSON J.A.

ACKAH-YENSU J.A

[2013]DLCA8129
																																						<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" >PARIN NAA FUSEINI ABUBAKAR<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NHADAT ISLAMIC SCHOOL AND THE PROPRIETOR<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/
APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL,
TAMALE]<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. H1/38/2010&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
28TH NOVEMBER, 2013<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, LOVELACE-JOHNSON J.A., ACKAH-YENSU 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 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>DENNIS ADJEI, J.A.:<o:p></o:p>I
have the privilege of reading beforehand the judgment of my respected sister
Ackah-Yensu, J.A and I agree with her. However, I would like to express a brief
opinion on my own particularly on the issues of Limitation, bona fide purchaser
of the legal estate without notice and the alleged contradiction in the evidence
of the plaintiff’s witnesses.<o:p></o:p>The ground
6 of the appeal is that the learned trial Judge erred in finding that the plaintiff’s
case was not caught by limitation in spite of Defendants’ long constructive
possession of over 20 years and notice of its title in the records of the Lands
Commission. The defendants filed 10 paragraph statement of defence but did not
plead limitation. Order 11 Rule 12 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) rules
C.I.&nbsp; 47 require any person raising
points of law such as duress, fraud and limitation to plead and give
particulars. Rule 12(1) provides as follows:<o:p></o:p>“12.(1)Subject
to subrule (2), every&nbsp; pleading
shall&nbsp; contain&nbsp; the necessary particulars&nbsp; of any claim, defence&nbsp; or other matter pleaded including, but
without&nbsp; prejudice to the&nbsp; generality of the foregoing words<o:p></o:p>(a)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp; Particulars
of any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue&nbsp; influence on which&nbsp; the party pleading relies; and<o:p></o:p>(b)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;
Where a party pleading
alleges any condition of the mind of any person,&nbsp; whether of any disorder or disability of mind
or any malice, fraudulent intention or other condition of mind except
knowledge, particulars of the facts on which the party relies “.<o:p></o:p>The defendants
did not plead limitation and the trial Judge also gave his judgment without invoking
the statute of Limitation NRCD. The defendants who did not plead limitation
have turned round to fault the trial Judge for failing to raise limitation as a
defence for them. The law is settled that all legal issues which would
constitute defence must be specifically pleaded by the person relying on it.
The only exception to this rule is fraud which is treated as a scarlet sin and
the law requires the courts to raise it suo motu where it is clear on the face
of the records. The rational is that fraud is a felony and not a right which
can be waived. In the case of Apeah and another vs. Asamoah [2003-2004] 1SCGLR
226 the Supreme Court held that fraud vitiates everything and ordinarily it
should be pleaded but where it is not pleaded and there was clear evidence of
fraud on the face of the record the court cannot ignore it.<o:p></o:p>In
the case of Dolphyne (No.3) vs Speedline Stevedoring Co. Ltd. &amp; another
[1996-1997] SCGLR 515 IT WAS HELD THUS:<o:p></o:p>“(2)
The limitation decree, 1972(NRCD 54), was essentially a special plea which must
be pleaded as required by the High court (Civil Procedure) rules, 1954(LN
140A). If not pleaded, it could not be adverted to in submissions to the court;
and the court would not of its own motion take notice that an action was out of
time”.<o:p></o:p>The
other defences such as limitation, duress and undue influence are rights and
could be waived by the person who could raise them as a legal defence. If they
are not raised in the pleadings, the court cannot suo motu invoke it because
the law is that the party who could have raised it may decide to waive that
right.<o:p></o:p>The defendants
per their ground 4 of the appeal are asserting that the court should have held
that they were bona fide purchaser of the legal estates without notice. The
defendants have challenged the title of t</main>