VERONICA POKU vs. MARY LARTEY [2014]DLCA4773

Date	2014-11-23
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL: SUIT NO: H1/126/2014
Citation No.	[2014]DLCA4773

KUSI-APPIAH (PRESIDING)

ADUAMA OSEI J.A.

WELBOURNE (MRS.) J.A.

[2014]DLCA4773
																																						<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" >VERONICA POKU<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MARY LARTEY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CIVIL APPEAL: SUIT NO: H1/126/2014 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;23RD
NOVEMBER, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>KUSI-APPIAH
(PRESIDING), ADUAMA OSEI J.A., WELBOURNE (MRS.) J.A.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;tab-stops:63.75pt center 3.25in;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:
0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>KUSI-APPIAH,
J.A:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
simple issue in this appeal is the factual one of determining whether the
plaintiff (now respondent) or her son Richard Peprah (now deceased) is the
rightful owner of the disputed land.<o:p></o:p>In
my view that issue was elaborately pleaded and adequately canvassed at the
trial to obviate any blurring of it.&nbsp; I
turn first to the pleadings.&nbsp; In
paragraph 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the statement of claim, the plaintiff alleged that
by virtue of an agreement concluded between her as purchaser and one DORIS
LOLONYO HOTSE as the vendor evidenced by an indenture dated 20th day
of June, 2000, she purchased the disputed property in this case and put her son
Richard Peprah in occupation of same and left for the United States of America.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff avers that Richard Peprah having passed away, defendant (now
appellant) is currently in occupation of the disputed property without her
consent for which reason the plaintiff demanded in vain that defendant
immediately quit the disputed property and give vacant possession of same to
her.&nbsp; However, the defendant has not only
persistently defied plaintiff’s demand for vacant possession but also denied
plaintiff’s title to the property, the subject matter of dispute in this case.<o:p></o:p>For
her part, the defendant in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the
defence, countered that the disputed property was acquired by plaintiff’s son
Richard Peprah out of monies he earned as compensation in damages for
negligence in a motor accident case in 1994.&nbsp;
Although defendant concedes that the document to the disputed property
was prepared in plaintiff’s name, it is the case of the defendant that
plaintiff’s son, Richard Peprah, not merely exercised overt acts of ownership over
the subject property until he married defednant’s sister, Mrs. Iris Cecilia
Peprah, but that Richard Peprah actually co-habited with defendant’s sister,
Mrs. Iris Cecilia Peprah in the disputed property, rented same to Mrs. Janet
Otchere and subsequently granted defendant their leave and license to stay in
the disputed property as a caretaker to avoid same standing empty.&nbsp; According to the defendant, she therefore
went into occupation of the disputed property with her husband as caretaker and
has remained in possession of same since 2002.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant avers that subsequent to his marriage to her sister (Mrs. Iris
Cecilia Peprah), the plaintiff’s son, Richard Peprah, requested Madam Efe
Ampoma Mensah to change the document to the disputed property from plaintiff’s
name into his name.&nbsp; Defendant further
maintains that Richard Peprah sent the said Madam Efe Ampoma Mensah US$500
through defendant to effect the change but that the document was not changed
before Richard Peprah’s demise on the 14th December, 2003.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant contends that plaintiff’s son, Richard Peprah, died testate and that
in his Will, he devised the disputed property to appellant’s sister, Mrs. Iris
Cecilia Peprah.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff joined issue on this again and accordingly the first two issues set
down for trial were formulated as follows:<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether
or not the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the disputed land?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether
or not Richard Peprah was the rightful owner of the disputed land?<o:p></o:p>That
was the pith and marrow of the matter but s</main>