KOFI SARPONG vs. FRANKLIN ADU BOBI JANTUAH [2014]DLCA4941

Date	2014-02-20
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO: H1/71/13
Citation No.	[2014]DLCA4941

MARFUL- SAU JA (PRESIDING)

ADUAMA- OSEI JA

TORKORNOO GERTRUDE JA

[2014]DLCA4941
																																						<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" >KOFI SARPONG<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FRANKLIN ADU BOBI JANTUAH<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<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 0in 0in">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO: H1/71/13&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;DATE: 20TH FEBRUARY,
2014<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 0in 0in">

MARFUL-
SAU JA (PRESIDING), ADUAMA- OSEI JA, TORKORNOO GERTRUDE JA<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div>MARFUL-SAU, JA: <o:p></o:p>This appeal is taken from
the judgment of the High Court sitting at Kumasi.&nbsp; By the judgment dated the 3rd of
June 2010 the trial court dismissed the claims of the plaintiff who is the appellant
herein and affirmed the counterclaim of the defendant/respondent.&nbsp; The effect of the judgment by the trial court
was that the defendant/respondent was adjudged the owner of property number 511
Block XXVI, OTB Adum-Kumasi.<o:p></o:p>The appellant dissatisfied
with the decision of the trial court mounted this appeal praying that the
judgment below be set aside and ownership of the property the subject matter of
the dispute declared in him.&nbsp; In his Notice
of Appeal, the appellant formulated three grounds which were argued together by
his Counsel in his written submission.&nbsp;
An additional ground was later filed and argued.<o:p></o:p>The grounds of appeal
argued are as follows:<o:p></o:p>“(1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The trial court erred when it made a
finding of fact that Kwame Adu Bobi is the same person as the
defendant/respondent.<o:p></o:p>(2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The trial court erred when it decreed ownership of the
disputed property in the defendant/respondent.<o:p></o:p>(3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
judgment is against the weight of evidence on record and <o:p></o:p>(4)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the Honourable trial court erred in its ruling when it
held as lawful the Respondent’s usage of the name Kwame Adu Bobi instead of his
known identity of Franklin A. Jantuah to allegedly acquire the property in
issue when the said usage was intended to deceive state officials and therefore
wrong in law as same was contrary to public policy and therefore illegal.”<o:p></o:p>As observed earlier,
Counsel for appellant in his written submission argued the first three grounds
together.&nbsp; Indeed the said grounds could all
be argued conveniently under ground (3) which is that the judgment is against
the weight of evidence on record.&nbsp;
Appellant’s complaint in the said grounds is that the trial court or
Judge failed to do proper evaluation of the evidence on record and hence it
erroneously entered judgment for the respondent.&nbsp; I have carefully read through the record of
appeal and I am satisfied that this appeal raises one fundamental issue, which
is, whether or not the defendant/respondent is the same person as Kwame Adu
Bobi.<o:p></o:p>In this appeal therefore I
intend to address ground 3 of the Notice of Appeal which is that the judgment
is against the weight of evidence, bearing in mind the fundamental issue I have
raised.&nbsp; The law is trite that when an appellant
raises in his notice of appeal the ground that the judgment of the trial court
is against the weight of evidence adduced, then the appellate court is being
invited to conduct a review of the entire case particularly the evidence adduced
at the trial to ascertain whether the judgment rendered by the trial court is
supported by the evidence or not.<o:p></o:p>In OPPONG KOFI &amp; OTHERS V. ATTIBRUKUSU III (2011) 1 SCGLR 176, the
Supreme Court held among others that:-<o:p></o:p>‘’The effect of the ground
of appeal that a judgment is against the weight of evidence was to invite the
court of Appeal to review the whole of the evidence, documentary and oral,
adduced at the trial and come out with a pronouncement on the weight of
evidence in support of the judgment of the trial court or otherwise.&nbsp; Where findings were based on established
facts, the appellate court was in the same position as the trial court and it
could draw its own inferences from the established facts.’’&nbsp; See also <o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo1">AKUFO-ADDO V.
 CATHELINE (1992) 1GLR 377<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo1">DJIN V. MUSAH BAAKO
 (2007-2008) 1 SCGLR 680<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><spa</main>